Umesh Kumar and Another vs State of H.P. and Others

Surjit Singh, J.—Petitioners, who are serving as work-charged helpers since 1977, pursuant to their order of appointment, Annexure PE, filed original application before erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal in the year 2004, seeking issuance of direction to the Respondents to treat them as Fitter Mechanics, as according to them, they had been discharging duties of that post ever since their appointment. On abolition of H.P. Administrative Tribunal, matter came to this Court and so, it is being dealt with and disposed of by this Court.

Respondents, in their reply, have stated that the Petitioners were appointed as helpers and work of Fitter Mechanic has never been taken from them.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned Assistant Advocate General and also gone through the record.

Appointment letter, Annexure PE, shows that the Petitioners were appointed as work-charged helpers. There is nothing on record, supporting the claim of Petitioners that work of Fitter Mechanic was being taken from them.

Learned Counsel representing the Petitioners has drawn attention of the Court to Annexure PA, muster-roll, pertaining to the period prior to their appointment, vide Annexure PE. Muster-roll pertains to period upto December, 1976. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioners,. Petitioners were engaged as daily-waged workers in the capacity of Fitter Mechanics in the year 1976, per muster-roll, Annexure PA.

Petitioners are basing their case on their appointment as work-charged employees since 1977 and letter of appointment, Annexure PE, says that they were appointed only as helpers. Hence, petition is dismissed.