State of H.P. and Others vs Ranbir Singh

Dev Darshan Sud, J.—The State is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned State Administrative Tribunal setting aside the order dated 19.6.1996, Annexure A-1/1, whereby seniority granted to the Respondent and regularizing him against the lower post has been cancelled. Prior to the issuance of this order, another order has been issued by the State where he was appointed as work charged supervisor.

One of the grounds taken before the Tribunal was that no notice had been issued to the Respondent, the order was passed on its own and the same was therefore in violation of the principles of natural justice.

In reply an averment has been made that the notice had been issued but there was no material which has been placed before the Tribunal to show that actually notice was issued. The learned Tribunal holds:

It is not in dispute but is further clear from the material placed on record particularly Annexure-RA that the applicant completed 10 years continuous service with requisite number of days in each calendar year on December 31, 1994. Thus, on this count he became entitled for grant of work charged status in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhayaya and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (1994(2) SLR 377) reaffirmed in State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Gehar Singh (Civil Appeal No. 1037 of 2007 decided on February 27, 2007) w.e.f. January 1, 1995.

The controversy is as to whether the applicant was rightly given the work charged status as a Supervisor or he was not entitled for such status, therefore, his appointment as work charged Supervisor has rightly been cancelled.

A perusal of Annexure-Ra reveals that since September 1985 the applicant had continuously worked as a Supervisor till the end of the year 1994. Thus, more than half of the 10 years requisite service was rendered by the applicant as a Supervisor. In these circumstances, in view of the decision of the Hon''ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Sohan Lal and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (CWP No. 939/1996decided on August 8, 1996) the applicant was entitled for grant of work charged status Supervisor w.e.f. January 1, 1995. Therefore, the impugned order Annexure-A-1/1 is bad in law and the earlier order Annexure-A/3 giving due appointment to the applicant as work charged Supervisor was valid.

The judgment having been passed on the basis of the material on the record placed by the Respondents themselves, we do not find any illegality in this order. This petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.