IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1489 of 2021 Date of Decision: September 6, 2023 __________________________________________________________________ Divisional Forest Officer Suket ……... Petitioner Versus Nagu Ram …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.

Vermra, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

For the Respondent: Mr. Ajay Vaidya and Ms. Narvada, Advocates.

_________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, chahllenge has been laid to award dated 20.12.2017, passed by Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Kangra at Dharamshala in Ref. No. 200 of 2015, whereby learned Tribunal below held the respondent to be in continuous service with the petitioner with effect from the date of initial appointment of the respondent i.e. July 2004 and breaks given by the petitioner, being fictional in nature, were held to have no effect on continuity and seniority of the respondent and seniority be reckoned from initial date of appointment.

2. Learned Tribunal below, while holding respondent to be in continuous service of the petitioner with all consequential benefits, specifically refused the prayer made with regard to back wages. Apart from above, learned Tribunal below also directed the petitioner to consider the case of the respondent for regularization from the date his juniors were regularized as per policy of regulation framed by State Government from time to time.

3. Before the case at hand could be heard anHd decided on its own merit, learned counsel for the respondent invited attention of this court to judgments dated 21.6.2021 passed by this Court in CWP NO. 3388 of 2021, titled The State of Himachal Pradesh & Another v. Manohar Lal and dated 17.11.2021 in CWP No. 7053 of 2021 titled The State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Shri Tulsi Ram and connected matters, to state that the case at hand is squarely covered by aforesaid judgments, which have otherwise attained finality.

4. Though Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General disputed aforesaid clCaim of the respondent, but having carefully perused the judgments (supra), vis-à-vis issue raised herein, this court finds merit in the submission of learned counsel for the respondent. Bare perusal of judgments supra clearly reveals gthat the respondents, in those case were not only similarly situate persons to that of the petitioner, as far as their employment with the petitioner department is concerned, but they were also terminated in contravention of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and, in their cases also, fictional /artificial breaks were given to stop them from completing 240 days in calendar, so that they may not stake claim for regularization.

5. Consequently, in view of above, present petition is dismissed by directing that mandate contained in The State of Himachal Pradesh & another v. Manohar Lal (CWP No. 3388 of 2021) decide don 21.6.2021, shall also mutatis mutandis apply to the present case. The petition is dismissed and award passed by learned Tribunal below is upheld. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Interim directions, if any, stand vacated.

(Sandeep Sharma)

Judge September 6, 2023 (Vikrant)