BRESTU RAM Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- 1. That the recruitment made against two vacant posts may kindly be set aside and quashed. 2.That the applicant may be considered against the vacant post on the basis of seniority as per the rules. 3. That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondents not to disengage the service of the applicants and status quo be maintained. 4. That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondents not to give fictional or artificial or notional breaks in the services of the applicants to deprive the benefits of continuous service.

(2.) In the reply, it is stated as follows:- 7(C) The apprehensions and fears as expressed by the applicants in this sub para are misplaced and misconceived in that they will have to face disengagement after September every year, because there is no other work with the replying respondents and this disengagement should not be coloured as termination of their services which has different connotation. Actually, their candidature as Beldars are kept intact by way of their inclusion in the seniority list, out of which top number of Beldars are engaged against sanctioned numbers. 7(F) There is no deliberate break being given in the engagement of DDT Beldars because the engagement is for only six months in a year and that too with the sanction of the State Government, and as such their dis-engagement becomes unavoidable after September each year. However, to compensate such DDT Beldars, they are being considered against regular posts in a phased manner as suggested by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and this Hon'ble Forum as well.

(3.) In view of the stand taken by the respondents, as above, in case the petitioners have still any grievance left, they may approach 1st respondent, in which case, the matter will be duly considered by 1st respondent.