Himachal Pradesh High Court
Arun Singh Aged 43 Years vs Himachal Road Transport on 7 January, 2022
Bench: Sabina, Satyen Vaidya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ON THE 7th DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 83 of 2022
Between:-
1. ARUN SINGH AGED 43 YEARS,
SON OF SHRI KASHMIR,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. TALARA,
TEHSIL NURPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
2. AJAY KUMAR AGED 50 YEARS,
SON OF SHRI RAGHUBIR SINGH,
RESIDENT OF C/O RAGHUBIR SINGH,
SANKAR COLONY, GALI NO.3,
OLD SUBJI MANDI, PATHANKOT, PUNJAB.
3. DEEPAK KATOCH 41 YEARS,
SON OF SHRI RAGHUBIR SINGH
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. INDPUR,
TEHSIL NURPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
4. ISHWAR SINGH 40 YEARS SON
OF SHRI BALDEV SINGH,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KALRU,
P.O. PARGAR, TEHSIL JAWALI,
DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
5. RAJESH KUMAR 43 YEARS,
SON OF SHRIBIR SINGH,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHARIAN,
P.O. HOURI DEVI, TEHSIL FATEHPUR,
DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
6. RAKESH KUMAR 46 YEARS 46 YEARS,
SON OF SHRI KARAM CHAND,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. THORA,
TEHSIL NURPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:34:36 :::CIS
-2-
7. GIRDHARI LAL, 56 YEARS,
SON OF SHRI DIWAN CHAND,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAROH, P.O.
RAJA-KA-TALAB, TEHSIL NURPUR,
.
DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
8. RASH PAL 58 YEARS,
SON OF SHRI MANGU RAM,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RUPANLAHAR,
P.O. PAGRA, TEHSIL NURPUR,
DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
9. RAJEEV KUMAR, 47 YEARS,
SON OF SHRI AMAR SINGH,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. KINNU,
TEHSIL AMB, DISTRICT UNA, H.P.
10. RAJEEV KUMAR 40 YEARS,
SON OF SHRI SURINDER PAUL,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. KINNU,
TEHSIL AMB, DISTRICT UNA, H.P.
11. KULDEEP SINGH 38 YEARS,
SON OF SHRI RAMESH CHAND,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DUHAL
BBANGWATA, P.O. KINNU, TEHSIL
AMB, DISTRICT UNA, H.P.
12. NARINDER SINGH 38 YEARS,
SON OF SHRI PRITAM CHAND,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHLRGI, P.O.
KEHAR, TEHSIL NURPUR,
DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
13. MANOJ KUMAR, 40 YEARS,
SON OF SHRI DEV RAJ,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAMKAR, P.O.
DHAMETA, TEHSIL FATEHPUR,
DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
14. INDER SINGH 46 YEARS,
SON OF SHRI KAMAL SINGH,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAMKAR,
P.O. DHAMETA, TEHSIL FATEHPUR,
DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:34:36 :::CIS
-3-
15. SATWANT SINGH 42 YEARS,
SON OF SHRI PARTAP SINGH,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O.
.
PHARIAN, TEHSIL JAWALI, DISTRICT
KANGRA, H.P.
16. RAM PAL 44 YEARS
SON OF SHRI MULK RAJ,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. SAHWA,
TEHSIL NURPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA
H.P.
17. JEEVAN KUMAR 45 YEARS,
SON OF SHRI UTTAM CHAND,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHARIAN,
P.O. HOURI DEVI, TEHSIL FATEHPUR
DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
18. RAJINDER SINGH 58 YEARS,
SON OF SHRI MALKIAT SINGH
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O.
BERI-KUTHERA, TEHSIL JASWAN,
DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
19. MUKESH KUMAR 41 YEARS
SON OF SHRI MADHU RAM,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O.
THORA, TEHSIL NURPUR
DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
20. KAMAL SINGH 41 YEARS,
SON OF SHRI BALWANT SINGH
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BALOH
P.O. KOTLA, TEHSIL JAWALI,
DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
21. KULDEEPSINGH 38 YEARS
SON OF SHRI DHARAM SINGH
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SUNHET
PATTI, P.O. GHULORAHER DHAR,
TEHSIL SASWA KOTLA, DISTRICT
KANGRA, H.P.
22. VIPIN KUMAR 52 YEARS
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:34:36 :::CIS
-4-
SON OF SHRI KARAM CHAND,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. PUKHARI
TEHSIL & DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.
.
23. BASANT SINGH 45 YEARS,
SON OF SHRI BAHADUR SINGH,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE VEDYALI,
P.O. JHAJHA KOTHI, TEHSIL CHURAH,
DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.
24. SUNDER KUMAR 43 YEARS,
SON OF SHRI HANUMAN,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BANTU,
P.O. KULAIT, TEHSIL HOLI,
DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.
25. RAJESH KUMAR 49 YEARS,
SON OF SHRI CHUNI LAL,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE &
P.O. PUKHARI, TEHSIL & DISTRICT
CHAMBA, H.P.
26. ANIL KUMAR 45 YEARS,
SON OF SHRI DESH RAJ,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O.
PIKHARI, TEHSIL & DISTRICT
CHAMBA, H.P.
27. JASWANT SINGH 53 YEARS,
SON OF SHRI BADRI PRASAD
RESIDENT OF VPO SOPRI
TEHSIL & DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.
28. MANOJ KUMAR 41 YEARS
SON OF SHRI RAGHUBIR SINGH,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. INDPUR,
TEHSIL NURPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA
H.P.
....PETITIONERS
(BY SH. M.A. KHAN, SR. ADVICATE WITH MS. HEM KANTA
KAUSHAL, ADVOCATE)
AND
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:34:36 :::CIS
-5-
1. HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION THROUGH ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HEAD OFFICE SHIMLA-171003.
.
2. REGIONAL MANAGER, HIMACHAL
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
CHAMBA, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.
3. REGIONAL MANAGER, HIMACHAL
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
KANGRA, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
4. REGIONAL MANAGER,
REGIONAL MANAGER, HIMACHAL
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
UNA, DISTRICT UNA, H.P.
r ....RESPONDENTS
(SH. VIKAS RAJPUT, ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Ms.
Justice Sabina, passed the following:
ORDER
The petitioners have filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following relief:-
"i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent Corporation to count the seniority of the petitioners from the initial date of their appointment as Booking Agent and they were working as conductors or in the alternative, from the date when they completed 6 years of continuous service running with the buses strictly in consonance with the judgment dated 20.11.2012, with all consequential benefits."::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:34:36 :::CIS -6-
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been working as Conductors, although, they were .
initially appointed as Booking Agents on commission basis. The seniority of the petitioners was liable to be counted from the date they had completed six years of continuous service running with the buses.
3. Petitioners along with others had earlier filed petitions in this Court, seeking following relief:-
"(i) That the respondents may be directed to preferentially consider the petitioners for the post of Conductors according to their seniority in view of the latest development which had taken place by the respondents."
4. The said writ petitions were disposed of vide order dated 20.11.2012 and it was held as under:-
"It is open to the petitioners to point out such continuous engagement as conductors to the Corporation and in the case of those who have more than six years of uninterrupted engagement as conductors, there will be a direction to the Corporation to consider the case of those booking agents for appointment as conductors within two months.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions and review petitions stand disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any."
5. Thereafter, Contempt Petitions were filed by the petitioners, as the cases of the petitioners, had not been considered by ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:34:36 :::CIS -7- the respondents. The Contempt Petitions filed by the petitioners along with others were disposed of vide order dated 31.7.2013 and following .
order was passed:-
"It has been brought to our notice that Himachal Road Transport Corporation is going to provide appointments on contractual basis to the petitioners. To that effect, a letter has been produced before us, which is taken on record.
2. In view of these facts and circumstances, cause of action does not survive, as prayed for by the learned counsel for the respondents-alleged contemnors. However, if petitioners are not satisfied with the appointments given on contractual basis, they may approach before the appropriate forum for appropriate remedy. However, nothing remains to proceed with these contempt petitions, accordingly the same are disposed of."
6. Now, by filing present petition, petitioners have sought a direction to the respondent Corporation to count their seniority as Conductors from the date, they had completed six years of continuous service, in consonance with judgment dated 20.11.2012.
7. So far as, the earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioners are concerned, directions had been issued that it was open for the petitioners to point out their continuous engagement as Conductors to the Corporation and in case they succeed in doing so, the Corporation would consider their cases for appointment as Conductors. In pursuance to the said orders, petitioners were offered appointments on ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:34:36 :::CIS -8- contractual basis as Conductors. Consequently, the Contempt Petitions were disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioners that in .
case they were not satisfied with the appointment on contractual basis, they could approach appropriate forum for appropriate remedy.
8. Petitioners had accepted their appointments on contract basis in the year 2013 and had not approached any forum immediately for appropriate remedy. Rather their services were regularized in the year 2017. However, the present writ petition has been filed now in the year 2021. In this factual background, we do not find any ground for interference, while exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction and the petition is dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Sabina) Judge (Satyen Vaidya) th 7 January, 2022 Judge (kck) ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:34:36 :::CIS