Surender Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh and others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the representation dated 26.10.2021 (Annexure-P/2) made by the petitioner through proper channel and pass speaking order in view of judgment in CWP No. 650/1996.

(ii) That the respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to grant seniority benefit after counting fiction gap/break w.e.f. 01.01.1992 to 31.05.1995 to the petitioner which has been granted to respondent No.4.

(iii) Period w.e.f. 01.01.1992 to 31.05.1995 may be counted toward seniority in light of to judgment passed by this Hon’ble High Court of H.P. in CWP No. 650/1996. Whereas, the same relief has been given to similar situated persons.”

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the averments in the writ petition as well as the documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in limine.

Primarily the petitioner is calling upon this Court to issue a direction to the respondents to grant seniority to the petitioner by condoning fictional break in service w.e.f. 01.01.1995 to 31.05.1995. For the purpose of seeking this relief, the petitioner is harping upon the judgment of this Court passed in CWP No. 650/1996, titled as Prem Singh & others Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 13.05.1996, which petition was disposed of by this Court in the following terms:-

“Both the petitioners were engaged as daily wage beldars but subsequently they were dis-engaged. According to the petitioners, persons appointed after the petitioners are still in service.

Therefore, we direct the Executive Engineer, I & PH Division Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, to engage the petitioners if the junior persons are still working. If the petitioners are engaged they can be discharged/retrenched in accordance with law and the services of the petitioners during the period which they were not allowed to work shall be counted only for seniority.”

This Court is of the considered view that in case the respondents were not implementing the directions given by the Court in the said writ petition, then the remedy available with the petitioner was to have the said order executed, within the period of limitation. As the order was passed on 13.05.1996, it ought to have been executed within 12 years, as from the date of passing of the order by the High Court. Filing of a belated representation in the year 2021 cannot infuse life in a stale and dead matter and similarly, filing a fresh writ petition seeking writ of mandamus for the execution of the order passed by this Court as far back as in the year 1996 in an earlier writ, in the garb of directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner, is also nothing but abuse of the process of law.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,000/- to be paid by the petitioner, with the Registry of this Court. Cost to be paid within a period of four weeks. For compliance, list on 16.12.2024. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.