Muni Lal vs State of H.P. and Others

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

That the Applicant is discharging duty as Bill Distributor for over 15 years and changing his designation to that of Work-charged Beldar'' is highly illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, the impugned order A-3 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice and fair play.

In reply, at paragraph 2, it is stated as follows:

...In this respect, it is stated that the post of Beldar as well as Bill Distributor are same posts carrying the same wages/pay scale and quantitatively and qualitatively there is no difference in the work and duties of Bill Distributor and Beldar which facts is clear from man days chart of the Applicant which shows that he has worked both as Beldar and Bill distributor and as well as wages and pay scale of the post of Beldar as well as Bill distributor are the same. Therefore, the Govt. of HImachal Pradesh in order to reduce the number of categories, such as Survey Khalasi, Bill Distributor, Water works peon and Lab Attendant by clubbing similar situated posts to a single post of Beldar and re-designated them as Beldar vide notification dated 14th November, 1995 cop of notification annexed as Annexure R-1. It is further submitted that the re-designation has been made by the Govt. in November, 1995 whereas the regularization of the application has been made only during 1997 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 much later than the clubbing and re-designating the post of Bill distributor. However, due to oversight of this notification the Executive Engineer mistakenly offered him the post of Bill distributor which post never existed after 14.11.1995. When this mistake came to the notice of the Executive Engineer, necessary office order (impugned) has been issued by the Executive Engineer. This office order is perfectly in accordance with the law as there exist no post of Bill distributor after 14.11.1995.

According to the Petitioner, the action thus taken by the Respondents is in violation of principles of natural justice and it is also in violation of Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As far as the former submission is concerned, we do not find any basis, since while correcting the mistake, that has occurred, it is not invariably required that a party should be put to notice. Even otherwise, now the Petitioner has got full opportunity to participate in the proceeding and admittedly there is no dispute as to the factual position as regards the mistake. As far as the latter submission is concerned, remedy is open to the Petitioner to initiate the process under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Without prejudice to such liberty, as far as latter course is concerned, the writ petition is dismissed. The pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.