State of Himachal Pradesh vs Jagdish Raj Prabhakar

Justice Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment, dated 8.4.2009, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP(T) No. 2884 of 2008. The grievance of the petitioner, who firstly approached the Administrative Tribunal, is that the services rendered by him as Demonstrator/Lecturer in Government Ayurvedic College, Paprola, District Kangra, H.P., till his regularization on 26.2.1986 be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining the seniority and for considering him for the post of Assistant Professor/Senior Lecturer. As pointed out above, the petitioner originally filed an O.A.(D) No. 464 of 1995 stating that he had worked as Demonstrator/Lecturer and that he be given appropriate place in the seniority of Demonstrators/Lecturers. The petitioner had made a representation in this behalf, but the same was rejected by the Government, hence he filed the Original Application.

Notice in the Original Application was issued on 20th April, 1995. On 27.12.2007 i.e. 12 years after the admission of the Application, when the same came up for hearing before the erstwhile Tribunal, the learned Additional Advocate General sought one last opportunity to file reply and on his request, six weeks time was granted. Reply was not filed when the mater was listed on 17.6.2008, but again a request was made by the State that more time to file reply be allowed and last opportunity of four weeks was granted.

On the abolition of the Tribunal, in terms of the Transfer of Decided and Pending Cases and Applications Act, the Original Application was transferred to this Court and registered as CWP(T) No. 2884 of 2008. On 19th March, 2009, since the petitioner was not represented by his counsel, the matter was adjourned to 8th April and notice was ordered to be issued to the counsel for the petitioner. However, no request was made by the State for extension of time to file reply. Therefore, the learned Single Judge decided the mater without any reply by the State.

Shri Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General, urges that one opportunity should have been granted to the State to file reply. We are unable to accept this contention because from the facts narrated above, it is apparent that for 14 long years, the State did not care to file reply and now it must suffer the consequences.

The facts, which are undisputed, show that the petitioner has actually worked as Demonstrator/Lecturer. True it is, that the petitioner may have been posted temporarily as Lecturer while he continued to hold the post of Ayurvedic Chkitsa Adhikari, but he was actually performing the duties of a Demonstrator/Lecturer in the College at Paprola. The learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the period of service rendered by the petitioner as Demonstrator/Lecturer from 7.5.1980 till the date of his regularization should be taken into consideration while drawing up the seniority of Demonstrators/Lecturers and he be assigned his seniority by counting the aforesaid services. We see no fallacy in the aforesaid judgment since the petitioner is working against the post of Lecturer and has been regularized against the said post. It is not the case of the State that the petitioner has come as a backdoor entry. In fact, the Government was short of Lecturers and adjusted the Ayurvedic Chkitsa Adhikaris as Lecturers in the College at Paprola and now the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of the services rendered by him for the purposes of working out his seniority. The appeal is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs.