Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

............................................................................................. Coram The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 yes For the petitioner : Mr. H.K. Paul and Mr. Tara Chand Chauhan, Advocates.

For the respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Additional Advocate General.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Whether petitioner was engaged only on bill basis, for a period from May 2008 to August 2008, as a stop-gap arrangement, during leave period of regular driver of respondents-department and had not completed 180 days (Tribal area) of service & therefore was not entitled for reliefs prayed by him, is the question involved in the instant writ petition. Reference having been answered against the petitioner, instant writ petition has been preferred by him.

basis.

b) Regular driver, namely, Sh. Jai Singh, working in the office of DFO Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, had proceeded on long leave. During his absence, the petitioner was engaged as driver on bill basis. No appointment letter was issued to the petitioner, in fact such engagement was purely a stop-gap arrangement.

c) Since, the engagement of the petitioner was during the leave period of the regular driver, Sh. Jai Singh, as stop-gap arrangement and on bill basis, therefore, neither the services of the petitioner were terminated nor he was retrenched.

5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that service of the petitioner as water carrier on daily wages w.e.f. 21.7.1997 to 29.9.1997 be considered for the purpose of seniority and whole time contingent paid worker in view of rulings of Hon'ble High Court of H.P. announced in CWP No. 859 of 2010 titled Rishi Pal vs. State of H.P. and others decided on dated 24.5.2010 and in view of CWP No. 5444 of 2010 titled Jeet Ram vs. State of H.P. and others decided on dated 28.9.2011 is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons mentioned hereinafter. Court has carefully perused the above said orders passed by Hon'ble High Court of H.P. in aforesaid CWPs carefully. In both CWPs,Hon'ble High Court of H.P. did not announce that if a person is appointed on daily wages purely on temporary basis as stop gap arrangement against the leave vacancy even then benefit of stop gap arrangement service would be given to the employee for the purpose of seniority and regularization. Court has carefully perused the office order passed by the Principal Government Collage Chaura Maidan Shimla dated 21.7.1997 wherein the petitioner was appointed on daily wages purely on temporary basis as stop gap arrangement.

...............................................................

6. It is proved on record that appointment of the petitioner as water carrier was (1) Purely on temporary basis. (2) The appointment of petitioner was as stop gap arrangement. There is recital in office order that service of the petitioner would stand terminated automatically on joining of regular employee. There is further recital in office order that amount would be paid to the petitioner from the College Amalgamated Fund according to rates approved by H.P. Government. Copy of office order was supplied to the petitioner. After receiving the office order the petitioner has himself voluntarily accepted the condition of office order dated 21.7.1997. Petitioner has voluntarily accepted that he would work (1) Purely on temporary basis as stop gap arrangement. (2) Petitioner has admitted that his service would be terminated automatically on joining of regular employee. Court is of the opinion that petitioner has voluntarily accepted the terms and conditions of the conditional appointment order. It is held that petitioner cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate the conditional appointment order dated 21.7.1997. Petitioner has himself admitted that he would work purely on temporary basis as stop .