AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J
On 01.05.2024, this Court passed the following order:
“ Specific case of the respondents for not forwarding the name of the petitioner for being imparted two months’ ITI training is that he did not apply for the same. Even though, the respondents have produced some record today, but there is no record pertaining to the applications submitted by other persons who were sent for said training.
Let the applications of 25 Beldars, who were sent for training of Pump Operator list whereof has been supplied today in the Court, be produced by the respondents on the next date of hearing.
List on 08.05.2024.”
Today, Sh. Mohan Singh Negi, Senior Assistant, Jal Shakti Vibhag, Division Kasumpati, Shimla9 is present in person and states that there is no record available with the Department regarding the applications of anyone of 25 Beldars that had been sent for training of Pump Operator. His statement is taken on record.
Now that the respondents themselves have conceded that there is no record available with them regarding the applications of those of the 25 beldars, who were sent for training, the defence taken by them in paragraph 6(ii) of their reply on merits, is palpably false and contrary to the record. Relevant portion of paragraph 6(ii) reads as under:
“6(ii) The petitioner is performing his duties as Beldar as per his designations. However, the petitioner never applied for two months departmental training programme at the relevant time.”
In such circumstances, the deponent of the affidavit Er. Virender Thakur, posted as Superintending Engineer, Jal Shakti, Circle Shimla09 at that relevant time, is prima facie found to be guilty of having filed a false affidavit and thereby he has not only committed perjury, but is also liable to be prosecuted and punished under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Therefore, notice in Form 1A be issued to the Er. Virender Thakur, directing him to show cause as to why he be not prosecuted and punished under the Contempt of Courts Act and at the same time, why proceedings for perjury be not initiated against him.
Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the contemnor.
Registry is directed to register the contempt proceedings separately. Let the contemnor appear before this Court on 15.05.2024.
As regards the merits of the case, admittedly the petitioner had not been sent for training illegally by the respondents and in such circumstances he cannot be denied the relief, as sought for by him. After all the respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong, more particularly, when it is not denied that the petitioner at the time of filing of the instant petition has rendered more than 26 years of service and had thereby acquired sufficient experience so as to be promoted to the post of Junior Technician (Pump Operator), bearing in mind the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad & Others Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, 1990(1) SCC 361.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to promote the petitioner to the post of Junior Technician (Pump Operator) forthwith and such promotion shall relate back to the date, when his juniors have been promoted.
Since the petitioner is still in service, he will be imparted two months training immediately on his promotion so that the functional requirement of the respondents is not disturbed.
Moreover, since the petitioner has been dragged to an unnecessary litigation, he shall be entitled to all actual benefits including monetary and nonmonetary benefits.
For compliance to come up on 14th August, 2024.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.