SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(HP) 283

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
Paramjeet Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of HP and others - Respondents
CWPOA No. 7648 of 2019
Decided On : 24-04-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kumar.
For the Respondents:Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Deputy Advocate General.

IMPORTANT POINT
Entitlement to regularization based on completion of 240 days per calendar year and the court's authority to direct the extension of benefits to the petitioner.

Headnote:

Termination of Employment - H.P. State Administrative Tribunal - 2000-2023 - The court considered the termination of the petitioner's employment and the claim for consequential benefits. The court analyzed the petitioner's engagement, the nature of work, and the completion of 240 days per calendar year. The court referred to similar cases and their outcomes, highlighting the regularization of other appointees. The court found that the petitioner, like others, was entitled to regularization and directed the respondents to extend the benefits by deeming the first year of service to be 2001 and condoning the shortfall of days in subsequent years. The court also directed the creation of a supernumerary post if necessary for the petitioner's regularization.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner approached the court against his termination and sought consequential benefits for his service, claiming to have completed 240 days per calendar year from 2001 to 2023.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner, like other appointees, was entitled to regularization and directed the respondents to extend the benefits by deeming the first year of service to be 2001 and condoning the shortfall of days in subsequent years. The court also directed the creation of a supernumerary post if necessary for the petitioner's regularization.

Issues: Termination of employment, entitlement to regularization, completion of 240 days per calendar year, and claim for consequential benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the completion of 240 days per calendar year as a basis for entitlement to regularization and directed the respondents to extend the benefits to the petitioner by deeming the first year of service to be 2001 and condoning the shortfall of days in subsequent years.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the court directed the respondents to extend the benefits of regularization to the petitioner by deeming his first year to be 2001 and condoning the shortfall of days in subsequent years. The court also directed the creation of a supernumerary post if necessary for the petitioner's regularization.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

Petitioner, for redressal of his grievances, had approached the Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal on 13th June, 2016 by filing OA No. 2665 of 2016 titled Paramjeet Singh vs. State of HP. On abolition of the Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, the petition was preferred to this High Court and was registered as present petition bearing CWPOA No. 7648 of 2019.

2. Petitioner has approached the Court against his termination in pursuance to communication dated 18.03.2016 (Annexure A-3) whereby by reference of letter No.1580/793, received from the Director, Horticulture Department, direction was issued to remove/terminate the petitioner. Petitioner has also made further prayer to extend all consequential benefits for his service such as seniority, arrears, regularization after condoning the fictional breaks.

3. As per petitioner, he was engaged as daily wages labourer/contract labourer in the year 2000 in the H.P. Government Community Fruit Processing-cum-Training Centre, Dehra, District Kangra and amongst similarly appointed persons, he was at Sr. No.2 in the Seniority List. To substantiate his plea, petitioner has placed on record the Status/Seniority List-cum-Years-wise days of Engagement of the daily wagers/seasonal contract workers as Annexure A-1 wherein he has been shown at Sr. No.2 with the date of appointment dated 24.10.2000. In aforesaid list, Devinder Kumar was at Sr. No.1 with the date of appointment dated 21.09.2000, whereas Asha Devi is at Sr. No.3 with the date of appointment dated 12.03.2001. Other persons in the Seniority List, below Asha Devi are Vikram (date of appointment 30.03.2001), Nirmala Devi (date of appointment 01.06.2001), Gurpiary (date of appointment 19.06.2001), Chander Shekhar (date of appointment 21.02.2002) and Naresh (date of appointment 6.11.2004). Petitioner has claimed that job/work assigned to him was in the nature of preparation of pickles, jam, jelly etc. and to impart training to the local people or guide them coming to Centre for training, to clean and maintain the premises, counter sale, to do the gardening work, Chowkidari of premises etc. and accordingly, petitioner has to perform multifarious work and said work was and is available throughout the year. It has also been claimed by petitioner that petitioner had completed 240 days in the year 2001 i.e. served for 264 days, i.e. more than 240 days in the calender year 2001 and 245 days in the calender year 2002. However, thereafter by giving fictional breaks, petitioner was engaged only for 210, 208, 207 and 227 days in the year 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 respectively. However, thereafter, since 2007, he had completed more than 240 days per calender year continuously till 2015 by serving 296, 264, 298, 309, 308, 313, 294 and 258 days per calender year w.e.f. 2007 till 2014. Thereafter, in the years 2015, 2016, 2017, petitioner was again not permitted to complete 240 days but was allowed to work only for 235, 207 and 235 days in these years by fictional breaks. However, thereafter since 2017 till date petitioner has completed more than 240 days in every calender year i.e. 275, 306, 362, 288, 312 and 364 from 2018 till 2023. The aforesaid facts are substantiated from the record of respondents which was produced in Court and on the basis of which, a certificate issued by the Incharge, Processing-cum-Training Centre, Dehra, District Kangra was also placed on record.

4. In reply, respondents have opposed the prayer of petitioner on the ground that petitioner was neither employee of Department nor had been engaged on muster-roll basis but he was assigned work on hourly/piece job worker basis on 24.10.2000 for seasonal work and on subsequent years subject to availability of work and funds at Processing-cum-Training Centre at Nadaun, District Hamipur, to help the regular technical staff of the fruit processing unit in performing the activities like cutting, washing and cleaning of fruits and vegetab

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top