Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SATYEN VAIDYA, J.
PARVESH SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI V.K. SHARMA – Petitioner
Versus
HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY – Respondent
Civil Writ Petition Original Application No. 3737 of 2019
Decided On : 14-09-2022
Regularization - Public Employment - Agro Economic Research Centre - Market Survey Scheme - Field Investigator/Field Assistant - Himachal Pradesh University - [Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regularization of his service as a Field Investigator/Field Assistant at the Agro Economic Research Centre of Himachal Pradesh University, claiming to have served for about 15 years. He alleged nepotism in the regularization of other employees and challenged their eligibility.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's employment was temporary and coterminous with specific projects, and his services were dispensed with upon completion of the project. It held that there is no fundamental right to employment and public employment is governed by statutory rules. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner failed to establish any right in his favor.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's claim for regularization, his alleged seniority, and the challenge to the regularization of other employees based on nepotism and eligibility.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that public employment is governed by statutory rules and one can only claim discrimination, arbitrariness, or infraction of rules in public employment. It also highlighted that the petitioner's employment was temporary and coterminous with projects, and he failed to establish any right to permanent employment.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and no monetary reliefs were granted to the petitioner.
ORDER :
1. By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:
(a) Quash the impugned orders A-1 and impugned order whereby the respondents have regularised the service of the respondent No. 5 (the copy being not available with the present applicant) and also quash the impugned inaction of the respondent department whereby the respondents are not regularizing the service of the applicant being arbitrary, malafide and illegal.
(b) Direct the respondent to regularize the service of the applicant against the post of Field Investigator/Field Assistant, w.e.f. the date on completion of 10 years of service or from the date his juniors respondents No. 4 and 5 have been regularised with all the consequential benefits and interest on the arrears @ 18% p.a. from the due date till the date of realization.
(c) Direct the respondents to re-engage the applicant against the same post at the same place in the same capacity with all the consequential benefits and granting him seniority ante-date.
2. The petitioner approached the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal in the year 2003. With the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter was transferred to this Court and has been registered as CWPOA No. 3737 of 2019.
CASE OF PETITIONER:
3.1 The case set up by petitioner is that he was initially engaged on daily wage basis for compilation/duplication of Primary Data under the Market Survey Scheme from 21.11.1984 to 15.06.1985 in Agro Economic Research Centre of Himachal Pradesh University (for short ‘Agro Centre’). Thereafter, the petitioner was engaged by Agro Centre in different projects from time to time as per details as under:
| (i) | 19.10.1989 to 17.04.1992 | As Temporary Tabulator on the recommendations of Selection Committee, on consolidated salary of Rs. 1200/- with further increase of salary from time to time in Wood Balance Study (USAID). |
| (ii) | 20.04.1992 to 30.04.1996 | As Tabulator in Integrated Water Shed Development Hills Project on the consolidated monthly salary of Rs. 1800/-. |
| (iii) | 02.05.1996 to 02.11.1996 | As Tabulator in Plant Protection Project. |
| (iv) | 04.11.1996 to 28.02.2002 | As Tabulator in Market Survey Scheme. |
| (v) | 01.03.2002 to 28.02. 2003 | As Research Investigator on consolidated salary of Rs. 6000/- per month. |
| (vi) | 01.03.2003 to 20.06.2003 | Fictional Break given in the service of the applicant with a view to deprive him of benefit of being regularised despite the fact that the work existed and the funds were released/available. |
| (vii) | 20.06.2003 to 17.06.2004 | Field Assistant in Market Survey Scheme. On the basis of aforesaid engagements, petitioner claims to have served Agro Centre for about 15 years. |
3.2 Petitioner preferred the instant petition with grievance firstly that despite longevity of his engagement with Agro Centre, his services were not regularised and, secondly, he being senior to respondents No. 4 and 5 was entitled to be regularised as Field Assistant before them.
3.3 Petitioner also alleged that regularisation of respondents 4 and 5 was result of nepotism as they were closely related to respondents 6 and 7, who were senior officials.
RESPONSE BY OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS:
4.1 In their reply, respondents No. 1 to 3 contested the claim of petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had worked under different ad-hoc projects and lastly on completion of one such projects (Market Survey Scheme/project) on 31.03.2004, the services of petitioner were dispensed with vide notice dated 20.02.2004. His engagement always was co-terminus with the project.
4.2 As regards, the claim of petitioner vis-a-vis respondents No. 4 and 5, it was submitted that they were engaged under Cost Cultivation Scheme (for short ‘CCS’) which according to respondents No. 1 to 3 was altogether a different project. As per official respondents, bot
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
