HARPAL BALMIKI Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed this petition before the erstwhile H.P.State Administrative Tribunal. On the abolition of the Tribunal this petition has been transferred to this Court in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Transfer of Decided and Pending Cases and Applications) Act, 2008 and now registered as CWP(T) No. 5871 of 2008.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that the applicant was engaged as Safai Karamchari at Bus Stand Jawalamukhi in the year 1982. According to respondent No.3 his services were engaged on part time basis. It is not disputed that vide resolution No.5 the services of the petitioner as Safai Karamchari at the Bus Stand were regularized. At the relevant time, the Bus Stand Jawalamukhi was under the management and control of Panchayat Samiti, Dehra. From the record, it is apparent that there was some litigation between the Panchayat Samiti, Dehra and the Nagar Panchayat, Jawalamukhi and finally this dispute was settled and the matter compromised between the parties vide agreement dated 16th February, 1993. Other than one small piece of land, measuring 1691-09 sqm., the Panchayat Samiti relinquished its claim in respect of all other land including the Bus-stand/Taxi-stand at Jawalamukhi and received consideration of Rs.11 lacs. It is also not disputed that the petitioner continued to work as Sweeper in the Bus-stand. The stand of respondent No.2 is that the services of the petitioner were not taken over and in fact he was re-appointed as Sweeper on daily wages w.e.f. 1.4.1993. Thereafter, in 1995 the applicant was placed in the minimum of the pay scale of Rs.770/-. Since 1.2.1998 he was placed in the regular pay scale of class-IV employee. Respondent No.3 has clearly stated that the services of the petitioner had already been regularized in the year 1988. I fail to understand how the services of an employee who had already been regularized could be taken over on daily wage basis. In case, the services of the petitioner were no longer required by the Panchayat Samiti his services had to be disengaged by the Panchayat Samiti. This was not done. It is true that there is no formal order placed on record to show that the services of the employee were taken over but the fact is that the petitioner continued to function as Sweeper. This itself indicates that respondent No.2 had agreed to take over the services of the employee. Once the petitioner was a regular employee he had to be continued as such.

(3.) In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioners pay shall be recalculated by treating him to be a regular employee since 1988 and thereafter he shall be given benefit of revision of pay scale when it fell due w.e.f. 1.1.1996. It is, however, made clear that the arrears payable to the petitioner shall be payable only w.e.f. 1.6.1996 since the petition was filed in May, 1999 and the monetary benefits are being restricted for a period of three years. The entire amount due and payable to the petitioner alongwith interest @ 6% per annum shall be paid to him on or before 30th April, 2011 failing which the respondent No.2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.