Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rattan Lal vs . Hrtc And Others on 19 July, 2022
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Rattan Lal vs. HRTC and others CWP No.1910 of 2021 .
19.07.2022 Present: Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. B.C. Negi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Udit Shourya Kaushik, Advocate, for the respondents.
On 5.7.2022, this Court passed the following order:-
"Learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent has brought to our notice the judgment rendered by learned Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.4760 of 2012 titled Sarwari Begum & Ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & anr; decided on 26.7.2012, wherein it was held that there was no provision for encashment of the compensatory leave and the same could have only been availed by the employee while in service or else the same would only lapse. It has further been held that there is no provision for accumulation and encashment of compensatory leave.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner would invite attention of this Court to the documents accompanying CMP No.6288/2022 to establish that even after the judgment of this Court in Sarwari Begum (supra), respondents have released the amount of compensatory leave to Shri Ram Kishan, Shri Rishi Raj, Conductors and in addition to one Shri Sant Ram also. Not only this, the Board of Directors in its 145th meeting held on 17.2.2019, has decided to carry forward compensatory leave till December, 2019, as is evident from instructions dated 8.3.2019.
3. Confronted with this, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondents prays for and is ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS granted two weeks' time to obtain instructions. List .
on 19th July, 2022."
2. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice yet an another order passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.1032 of 2013 in case tiled Khushhal Singh vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & others, decided on 10.12.2013, wherein again the plea of petitioner, Khushhal Singh based on Sarwari Begum's case, was distinguished and when LPA No.5 of 2014 was filed by the HRTC against the said judgment, then at the time of decision, a statement was made on behalf of the HRTC that it has decided to comply with the judgment passed by this Court, as is evident from the order passed by the Bench on 24.11.2014, which reads as under:-
"Mr. B.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, stated at the Bar that he is under instructions to make a statement that the appellants have decided to comply with the judgment within three weeks. His statement is taken on record.
2. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of alongwith all pending applications."
3. This is not a stray and solitary case which has come up for consideration before this Court. Earlier also, in a case relating to allotment of Government Residences, not only large scale bungling was noticed but it was also observed that the officials of the HRTC had forged, fabricated and put ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS up wrong facts before this Court. This judgment was .
delivered in Maan Singh vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others and is reported in 2021 LAB.I.C.
394.
4. It shall be apposite to refer to certain observations as contained in Paragraphs 1 to 20 and thereafter 39 and 40, which read as under:-
"It was more than four decades back that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that "it must, therefore, be taken to be the law that where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms of largesses, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The power or discretion of the Government in the matter of grant of largesses including award of jobs, contracts quotas, licenses etc., must be confined and structured by rational, relevant and non- discriminatory standard or norm and if the government departs from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory (Refer:::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS
Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 26).
.
2 The principles laid down above would equally apply to the allotment of the government residences to be made by the respondent-
Corporation in accordance with the Himachal Pradesh Allotment of Government Residencies (General Pool) Rules, 1994.
3 The instant case depicts sordid, despotic and nepotic functioning of respondent-Corporation, which unfortunately despite observations made by this Court, as far as back as on 2.9.2015 in Shashi Bhushan vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. 2016(1) Shim.L.C. 302 CWP No. 9492-2014 does not seem to have learnt its lessons well.
4 While deciding the said case, which pertained to selection for the posts of Transport Multipurpose Assistants (Conductors) in the respondent-Corporation, the Court adversely commented on its working and observed as under:-
27. It is more than settled that public offices, both big and small, are sacred trusts. Such offices are meant for use and not abuse and in case large scale fraud is committed so as to shock the conscious of the Court, then the law is not that powerless and would step into quash the entire selection. This was so observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishan Yadav and another Vs. State of Haryana and others (1994) 4 SCC 165 as under:-
16. Having regard to all the above, the irresistible conclusion is "fraud has reached its crescendo".
Deeds as foul as these are inconceivable much less could be perpetrated. We are reminded of the words of Shakespeare: "Thus much of this, will ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS make Black, white; foul, fair; wrong, right; Base, noble; Ha, you gods! why this?"
.
(Timon of Athens, Act IV, Sc. 3)
17.It may not be too much to draw an inference that all these were motivated by extraneous considerations. Otherwise, how does one account for selection without interview, fake and ghost interviews, tampering with the final records, fabricating documents, forgery? Each of this would attract the penal provisions of Indian Penal Code. They have been done with impunity.
18.The story does not end here. From out of the "selection list" secret Communications have been sent to the candidates. Selections were made without medical test or verification of antecedents.
19.It is highly regrettable that the holders of public offices both big and small have forgotten that the offices entrusted to them are sacred trusts. Such offices are meant for use and not abuse. From a Minister to a menial everyone has been dishonest to gain undue advantages. The whole examination and the interview have turned out to be farcical exhibiting base character of those who have been responsible for this sordid episode. It shocks our conscience to come across such a systematic fraud. It is somewhat surprising the High Court should have taken the path of least Resistance stating, in view of the destruction of records, that it was helpless. It should have helped itself. Law is not that powerless.
29. Respondent No. 2 being creation of statute is admittedly a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and cannot therefore, act like a private individual, who can act in a manner whatsoever he likes, unless it is interdicted or ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS prohibited by law. Rather its power as an employer are more limited than that of a private employer .
inasmuch as it is subject to constitutional limitations and cannot be exercised arbitrarily. It is trite that the State and its instrumentalities have to act strictly within the four corners of law and all its activities are governed by rules, regulations and instructions. It is more then settled that when a statutory authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner then the same must be done in that manner or not at all.
5 The issue in question relates to allotment of government accommodation and aggrieved by the non-allotment, the petitioner has approached this Court for grant of following substantive reliefs:-
"a) That impugned office order dated 22.08.2020, Annexure P-3, may very kindly be quashed and set aside with directions to respondents No.1 & 2 to allow office order dated 14.08.2020, Annexure P-2, remain in force and allotment of Set No.12, Block-A, Divisional Workshop, Taradevi, Shimla 171010 in favour of the petitioner in vogue, to secure the ends of law and justice;
b) That respondents No. 1 & 2 may kindly be directed to post the House Allotment Rules, applications received for allotment of quarters, proceedings of the meetings of the House Allotment Committee and office orders issued consequently on the website of the respondent-
Corporation so that there is transparency in making allotment of houses to the employees.
c) That respondents No. 1&2 may kindly be directed to produce record pertaining to the allotment of houses in favour of employees of the ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS respondent-Corporation posted at Shimla from January, 2014 onwards along with proceedings of .
the meetings of the House Allotment Committee and consequent orders as issued before this Hon'ble Court for its kind perusal."
6 The petitioner joined respondent-Corporation as Driver on 31.5.2007 and is working as such since then. On 5.4.2019, he was elected as President of the Himachal Path Parivahan Nigam Drivers' Union, H.P. On 14.5.2020, the petitioner applied for the allotment of government accommodation and vide order, dated 14.8.2020, Set No. 12, Block-A, situated in Divisional Workshop Taradevi, was allotted in favour of the petitioner, however the respondents thereafter issued office order, dated 22.8.2020, whereby aforesaid allotment was cancelled and the same was made in favour of respondent No.3 and aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking reliefs, as quoted here-in- above.
7 The respondents have contested the petition by filing reply, wherein, apart from raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, the petitioner having not approached this Court with clean hands, locus standi, it has been specifically stated that no step-motherly treatment has been meted out to the petitioner on any account and on the contrary, the respondents had given a sympathetic view and alloted the accommodation out of turn to the petitioner, despite the petitioner being at Sr. No. 11, whereas respondent No.3 being at Sr. No.1, however when objections were filed by respondent No.3, respondents No. 1 and 2 were under obligations to consider those objections ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS and in this background, the respondent-Corporation reviewed its earlier decision and cancelled the .
allotment made in favour of the petitioner and alloted the same to respondent No.3.
8 In the reply, the respondents have annexed list of the applications received upto 16.7.2020 for residential accommodation in a tabulated form (Annexure R-2), which reads as under:-
SN 1 Name (Sh./Smt.) Ravi Kumar rDESIG.
Dvr.
PRESENT POSTED DW Tdvi Date receipt 7.4.2014 of of application Date of Ground existing s allotment Not Allotted 2 Pritam Singh Clerk HO 2.4.2015 Not Allotted 3 Ranvir Singh Condt. Unit-III 4.1.2017 Not Allotted 4 Kuldeep Kumar Condt. Unit-II 15.9.17 Not Allotted 5 Tilak Raj Dvr. DW Tdvi 18.9.17 Not Allotted 6 Daljeet Singh DM DO 27.12.18 Not Allotted 7 Vikram-II Dvr. DW Tdvi 17.4.19 Not Allotted 8 Ramesh Chand- Dvr. DW Tdvi 17.5.19 Not II Allotted 9 Joginder Singh Dvr. DW Tdvi 29.6.19 Not Allotted 10 Ram Krishan Dvr. Unit-1 9.7.19 Not Allotted 11 Man Singh Dvr. Local 5.8.19 Not Allotted 12 Hans Raj Sr. Asstt. HO 17.8.19 Not Allotted 13 Bhuteshwar Dvr. Local 29.8.19 Not Allotted 14 Pyare Lal Dvr. Local 22.10.19 Not Allotted 15 Tej Singh Mech. DW Tdvi 13.11.19 Not Allotted 16 Desh Raj Drv. DW Tdvi 18.12.19 Not Allotted 17 Gian Singh Dvr. Unit-I 3.2.2020 Not Allotted 18 Ashok Kumar Dvr. HO 22.5.2020 Not Allotted ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS 19 Chander Condt. DW Tdvi 4.5.2020 Not Prakash Allotted 20 Vivek Mehta Elect. Unit-I 17.6.2020 Not Allotted 21 Pawan Kumar AM DW Tdvi 20.6.2020 Not .
(Store) Allotted
9. In rejoinder, the petitioner, instead of
concentrating on the averments made in the
petition and trying to justify the allotment in his favour, contended that step-motherly treatment has been meted out to him on the ground that in case respondent No.3 had in fact made application for allotment in the year 2014, then why successively he did not object to the allotment of government accommodation in favour of Pawan Guleria, Hem Raj, Shankar Singh, Conductor, Pawan Kumar Sharma, Deputy Divisional Manager, Daljeet Singh, Divisional Manager, who had applied during the year 2014 and thereafter. 10 On 17.9.2020, the Court directed respondents-Corporation to produce records of house allotment committee along with Rules of allotment.
11 On 28.9.2020, arguments in this case were heard and the judgment was ordered to be reserved.
12 We perused the records on 28.9.2020 and found that same was not at all maintained properly much less in accordance with the provisions of Office Manual, which is the Bible of any office insofar as maintenance of the official record is concerned.
13 Accordingly, we directed the respondent-
Corporation to depute the concerned official/officer, who had been maintaining record. On 29.9.2020, Vijay Kashyap, dealing hand and Pyare Lal, Section Officer, appeared and after trying their level best ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS they failed to justify the names of the employees, as per tabulated chart, Annexure R-2 and requested .
for further time. Thereafter, dealing hand, alone came on 30.9.2020 and after spending few hours, was again not in a position to justify the entires shown in Annexure R-2.
14 It was thereafter on 1.10.2020 that dealing hand along with Section Officer again appeared and after spending about three hours sought permission to take back the record and prepare a tabulated chart.
15 It is now on 3.10.2020 that list of the employees to be considered for allotment of government residencies, in a tabulated form, has been handed over to us, duly certified by the Regional Manager (Legal) of the respondent- Corporation, which is annexed with this judgment as Annexure -I (total pages 8 in number).
16 Noticeably, the respondent-Corporation somewhere in the month of August, 2019 prepared list of the employees for allotment of residential accommodation, which reads as under:-
Sr. No. Name of Emp. DESIG Unit D/o Apply 1 Poonam Thakur Clerk D/W Tdv. 8.10.15 2 Madan Lal Driver DM Office 2.4.18 3 Ram Chand H.M. Tara Devi Unit 29.11.18 4 Daljeet Singh DM, Hzr. Head Office 27.12.18 5 Rajesh Kumar Jr. Tech.Electt. Tdvi Unit 28.3.19 6 Vikram Singh II Driver D/ Tdvi 17.4.19 7 Ramesh Chand II Driver D/W Tdvi 17.5.19 8 Joginder Singh Driver D/W Tdvi 29.6.19 9 Ram Krishan Driver Tara Devi 9.7.16 Unit/I 10 Man Singh Driver Local Unit II 5.8.19 11 Tilak Raj Driver D/W Tdvi 18.9.17/9.
8.19 12 Hans Raj Sr. Asstt. Head Office 17.8.19 changed 13 Bhutashwer Dutt Driver HIN Tdv 29.8.19 14 Pyare Lal Driver Local Unit 22.10.19 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS 15 Tej Singh Mech D/W Tdvi 13.11.19 changed 16 Raju Sweeper HO 13.9.19 17 Hem Raj Driver Taradevi Unit 23.9.19 18 Pawan Kumar DDM(T) D/W Tdv. 1.2.2020 .
17 Even though, this list was prepared somewhere in the month of August, 2019, but strangely enough it contains list of employees, who applied in later part of 2019 and 2020, though notings that have been continued further bear date 22.8.2019 however, these entries can best be left to guess work, but what is more shocking is that there is overwriting on these entries over and above the notings of the departmental head.
18 The petitioner, despite being no where even close in the seniority list of employees, who could have been allotted government accommodation, on the sheer strength of his being President of the Himachal Path Parivahan Nigam Drivers' Union, to which he was elected on 5.4.2019, approached the respondent-Corporation by writing letter, dated 5.8.2019, which reads as under:-
"The Divisional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla Division, Shimla, H.P. Subject: Regarding allotment of Departmental residence at Taradevi.
Sir, I have the honour to state that a Govt. residence has been allotted in favour of Sh. Rajinder Kumar Regional Manager (Stores), HRTC Head Office Shimla in the HRTC colony (Block-A Set No. 13) at Taradevi and said office stand retired from his services on 31.08.2019.::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS
You are therefore requested the same residence may please be allotted in my favour after .
vacation of said officer please.
I shall be highly thankful to you.
Yours faithfully Sd/-
(Man Singh) Driver HRTC, Local Unit, Dhalli-Shimla."
19 This application appears to have been placed before the Vice Chairman of the respondent- Corporation, who made following endorsement:-
"D.M. please do the needful.
Sd/- 5.8.2019"
20 Obviously, such a course could not have been adopted even by the Vice Chairman of the respondent-Corporation and the allotment had to be made strictly in accordance with the Rules.
.... .... .....
39 As observed above, a deliberate attempt has
been made by the respondent-Corporation to
mislead this Court by filing and creating
documents, which are not only fabricated, but not even incorrect as per the actual record, therefore, this Court left with no other option but to issue show cause notice to Vijay Kashyap, dealing hand and Pyare Lal, Section Officer, so also the deponent of the affidavit, Sh. Madan Sharma, Regional Manager (Legal), as to why they should not be prosecuted and punished under the Contempt of Courts Act for having deliberately and wilfully tried to mislead this Court by submitting fabricated documents to this Court.
::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS40 At the same time, it needs to be reiterated that this is not an isolated or solitary case, where .
the records are not being maintained properly, therefore, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh is directed to issue necessary instructions to all the departments/corporations under the State Government to-
(i) maintain office files and records strictly in accordance with the provisions of Office Manual and other instructions issued from time to time.
(ii) impart training to all officials/officers regarding maintenance of official records and filing of affidavits/replies in the Courts.
(iii) Sufficient copies of office manual be made available to each department offline and online."
5. If this was not enough, we may now refer to another case CWPOA No.6514 of 2019 titled as Sanjeev Kumar vs. State of H.P. through Principal Secretary, Transport, wherein the Corporation, after being caught on the wrong foot, had to constitute a Committee to enquire into the matter regarding discrepancies in appointment of Transport Multipurpose Assistants in HRTC against Sports quota from the year, 2004 onwards.
6. In the given circumstances, we are constrained to observe that the working of the HRTC needs to be improved and its house is required to be set in order.
7. Therefore, we direct the Secretary (Transport) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, to personally look into the matter, as the conduct of the HRTC and its official(s) ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS clearly go to indicate that there has been a rampant practice .
of pick and choose and true picture, otherwise, is not being brought and is rather being concealed from the Court, which in turn, has created impediment in maintaining consistency while passing orders.
8. We are informed by learned Senior Counsel that the Secretary (Transport) is already seized of the matter. If that be so, we hope and trust that the Secretary (Transport) will come out with some meaningful suggestions and thereafter take appropriate measures, so as to improve the working of the HRTC.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to obtain/file instructions/reply.
List on 23.8.2022.
( Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
( Chander Bhusan Barowalia )
July 19, 2022 (KS) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS