A claim for work charged status and regularization cannot be re-agitated in a new petition once the matter has been conclusively decided by a competent tribunal and the High Court in previous proceedings.

Whether approved for reporting?Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge

(Oral)

1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has sought directions to the respondents to grant him work charged status as Pump Operator w.e.f. 05.09.1989 in light of the policy prevalent at that time and further to treat him as work charged Pump Operator w.e.f. 05.09.1989, in light of principle of parity, since the similarly situated person i.e. respondent No.5 has been given the same benefits in terms of Annexure A-3, w.e.f. 03.12.1988.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner was engaged on 28.04.1979 as Beldar on daily wage basis with the respondents and thereafter on 13.05.1985 as Pump Operator on daily wage basis. Thereafter, vide memorandum dated 05.09.1989 (Annexure A-4), the petitioner was offered work charged post of Pump Operator, however, his joining was not accepted by the Executive Engineer.

3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondents had filed thte Original Application No. 143 of 1991 before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred as the Tribunal). The same was disposed of on 03.12.1996 (Annexure A-7), noticing that the original record produced by thhe learned Additional Advocate General shows that the petitioner had completed 10 years’ service on 31.12.1995 as Pump Operator. From 1996 his case will be considered for regularization. No junior to the petitioner was regularized and in such circumstances no other and further order needs be passed and the petition was disposed of.

4. The petitioner had again filed the petition bearing No. CWP(T) No. 5163 of 2008, titled, Ghan Shyam vs. State of HP & Anr., which was dismissed on 05.05.2010, in view of the earlier order passed by the Tribunal dated 03.12.1996 noticing that the petitioner has already been regularized on work charged basis w.e.f. 01.01.1996.

5. The petitioner still feeling aggrHieved by the judgment passed by this Court dated 05.05.2010 (Annexure A-8) had preferred the Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court which was registered as LPA No. 158 of 2011, titled, Ghan Shayam vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another. The Division Bench of this Court had dismissed the LPA on 29.02.2016 (Annexure A-9) and upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

6. Once the matter regarding the conferment of worhk charged status as Pump Operator and further regularization has already been considered by this Court, the petitioner cannot agitate the matter again. In case the petitioner is permitted to do so, there will be no end to litigation and thus, the petition is devoid of any merits.

7. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed, however no order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.