Himachal Pradesh High Court
Nota Ram & Ors vs H.P. State Forest Development ... on 29 May, 2015
Author: Rajiv Sharma
Bench: Rajiv Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No. 4543 of 2011.
Reserved on: 6.5.2015.
.
Decided on: 29.5.2015.
Nota Ram & ors. ......Petitioners.
Versus
H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. and ors. .......Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1No.
For the petitioners: Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate, vice counsel.
For the respondents: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Advocate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Rajiv Sharma, J.
The petitioners were appointed on daily waged basis as cleaner against the vacancies on 19.10.1990, 1.11.1993 and 1.12.1994 and were subsequently regularized as cleaners on 26.12.2002, 1.8.2010 and 21.8.2007, respectively. The case of the petitioners, in a nut shell, is that they have been appointed as cleaners but they have been discharging the duties of drivers in possession of driving licence(s) even for heavy transport vehicles. The petitioners have placed strong reliance on Annexures P-4 to P-20 to establish that they had been working as drivers, though appointed as cleaners. The petitioners are fully eligible also to be considered for the post of drivers, as per the R & P Rules, framed by the respondent-
Corporation. There are 94 posts of drivers but only 52 drivers are working on regular basis.
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:16:57 :::HCHP 22. The respondent-Corporation has also framed two seniority lists by dividing the Cleaners into two categories; (a) those who are regularized .
from daily wage basis and (b) those appointed on compassionate grounds, as per Annexures R-1 and R-2.
3. I have heard the learned Advocates and gone through the records of the case very carefully.
4. The seniority list is to be framed as per the Bye-laws framed by the respondent-Corporation on the basis of length of service in the grade.
The petitioners were appointed as cleaners in the year 1990, 1993 and 1994. They have been regularized, as noticed above, on 26.12.2002, 1.8.2010 and 21.8.2007, respectively. But, the persons who have been appointed after the petitioners and that too on compassionate basis, have been placed in separate seniority list of Cleaners of cadre posts, as per Annexure R-2 at page 58 of the paper book.
5. The respondent-Corporation has created artificial classification by treating homogeneous class of cleaners into two groups. The classification has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Only one seniority list was required to be prepared on the basis of length of service and not by treating the posts as "personal post" or "cadre post".
The petitioners, once have been regularized at par with other candidates appointed on compassionate basis, are required to be treated as one group.
It is averred in the reply that the petitioners were given duties of drivers in exigency of service when regular driver was on leave etc. The respondents ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:16:57 :::HCHP 3 have not specifically denied Annexures P-4 to P-20, whereby the petitioners were asked to discharge the duties of driver and that too from their initial .
date of appointment. The petitioners are entitled to salary of driver on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. The nomenclature adopted by the respondent-Corporation i.e. "personal post" and "cadre post" is against the canons of service jurisprudence. The cleaners, appointed by whatever mode, are cleaners for all intents and purposes and there cannot be artificial classification by giving separate designations as "personal post"
and "cadre post". r
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to re-draw the seniority list on the basis of length of service and to consider the case of the petitioners and similarly situated persons for the post of Driver. The respondents are further directed to pay the petitioners the salary of driver with effect from the date they have discharged duties as driver(s). Needful be done within a period of ten weeks from today.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
May 29, 2015, ( Rajiv Sharma ),
Judge.
(karan)
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:16:57 :::HCHP