Vipan Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Sandeep Sharma, J

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the issuance of letter dated 19.7.2013 (Annexure P-7, available at page 18 of the paper book), whereby representation dated 14.6.2012 received through Area Manager, Mandi, regarding resignation of the petitioner was not treated as a mandatory one month’s notice, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main relief(s):

“1. That order passed vide letter dated 19-07-2013 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to release the salary of one month i.e. for July, 2012 in favour of the petitioner with 9% interest.”

On 17.2.2011, petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Area Manager, on contract basis in the Himachal Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation, Mandi, District Mandi. Since the services of the petitioner were not regularized in the respondent-Corporation and he was expecting to be appointed on regular basis in some other Department, he filed a representation dated 14.6.2012 (Annexure P-2) to the respondent No.2, which is reproduced herein below “I Vipan Thakur presently working as Assistant Area Manager in HPSCSC area office Mandi has been recommended by HP Public Service Commission for the post of Naib Tehsildar in the Department of land an revenue. I was recommended by the same commission last year for the post of AAm/APO in the corporation. The criteria et for the interview required a candidate to be MBA and two years experience in private sector. Apart from my MBA degree I had the experience of working in some best private sector concerns. I was placed at first place by the merit list prepared by the HP Public Service Commission, I have joined HPSCSC for the sole reason because some of my classmates from MBA have joined HP Power corporation in 2009 on contract basis and their services were regularized after one year service. I though same state same state Government undertaking so same policy will be followed but when in last d BOD meeting our matter was put on table nothing concrete resulted. Besides that there is no definite future plan which shows what corporation wants to do with t directly recruited three class one AAM’s. In an organization where we are today struggling with management gap problems professional individual like us need to be motivated to shape ourselves to take future responsibilities, but the things are going sadly to exactly opposite direction. If one analytically analyses the situation of management gap, post 2015-16 most posts of Area Managers/AAM’s /DM’s will be falling vacant. It high time something needs to be done to tackle awkward situation.

Direct entry officials if regularized, could prove to be right decision.

The contract policy applied by the corporation is turning corporation to be literally a training centre. New qualified PDC’s recommended by commission are just getting 6000-7000 rupees per month which is simply not enough. We contract employees are not even getting DA. this is creating panic in new peoples and everyone is searching for better options. Lack of monetary benefits and lack of job security is prime reason for high rate of attrition among new recruit of corporation. In an organisation like ours, where old guard is retiring big time these problems of new employees need to addressed with human touch, so that young blood could be retained.

Respsected Sir, if we look around, there are examples where decision have been taken by top brass to address the problems of their employees like HP Power Corporation where 77 contractual employees were regularized. Keeping in mind the requirements of their organization. (The details are attached with).

Sir I request you to look into the plight of contractual employees who are well qualified, young and energetic and want to work with the corporation but if ignored will be forced to find next better option. As far as I am concerned, I am expecting my offer letter from revenue department in few days, if nothing concrete happens from corporation, I will be forced to part ways. This time period must be considered as notice period.”

Subsequently vide communication dated 20.7.2012 Annexure P-4, petitioner tendered his resignation from the post of Assistant Area Manager

Mandi. Vide order dated 1.8.2012 (Annexure P-5), the aforesaid resignation of the petitioner was accepted, subject to the condition that he would deposit one month’s salary in lieu of mandatory one month’s notice. In the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for relief as reproduced hereinabove:

Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that since vide representation dated 14.6.2012, he had apprised the respondent-Corporation with regard to his intention to resign from the post in question and had categorically stated in the communication that this time period must be considered as notice period, respondents, while accepting his resignation could not ask him to deposit one month’s salary in lieu of notice.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis the reasoning assigned in order dated 19.7.2013 passed by the Managing Director on the representation having been filed by the petitioner, this Court finds no merit in the petition.

Careful perusal of the representation Annexure P-2, nowhere suggests that the petitioner gave one month’s notice to the respondent Corporation specifically indicating therein that he intends to resign from the job and as such, his representation may be treated as one month’s notice, rather, representation as referred to above, if read in its entirety clearly suggests that the petitioner advised the respondent-Corporation to improve its working. In the last para of the representation, which is reproduced herein above, though, the petitioner apprised the respondent- Corporation that he is expecting the offer letter from the Revenue Department in a few days but he nowhere stated that he intends to resign from the post in question within a period of one month. In the aforesaid communication, petitioner categorically stated that if nothing concrete happens on the part of respondent-Corporation, he would be forced to part ways. Merely writing that this time period must be considered as notice period is not sufficient to conclude that the representation as referred to above was actually one month’s notice sent to the respondent-Corporation, apprising it with regard to intention of the petitioner to resign from the post. The Managing Director, while considering the representation has rightly observed in order dated 19.7.2013 that the representation dated 14.6.2012 received from the Area Manager Mandi, regarding resignation of the petitioner is/was, advisory in nature, as such, it cannot be treated as one month’s notice.

Consequently, in view of above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and same is accordingly dismissed alongwith all pending applications. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.