RAMESH CHAND SHARMA Vs. HPSFC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in the petition have prayed for quashing of seniority list dated 3.6.1993 Annexure A -11 and decision dated 25.11.1993 Annexure A -10. The petitioners have also prayed that promotions made by respondents No.1,2 on the basis of various seniority lists circulated from time to time may be quashed. In alternative petitioners may be declared as promoted on the posts of Forest Guards from the date on which their juniors were promoted by respondents No.1,2 with all consequential benefits like seniority and back wages.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that they were employed as timber watchers in respondent No.1 -Corporation w.e.f. 18.7.1982 on daily wages. The names of the petitioners were sponsored by different Employment Exchanges as required under the law. The petitioners were brought on the regular establishment of respondent No.1 vide memo dated 9.1.1986 Annexure A -1. The regularization of the petitioners was not in accordance as per instructions; the petitioners were entitled to regularization w.e.f. 1.8.1984 after rendering one year service with respondents. This anomaly was rectified by the respondents by issuing order dated 11.2.1988 and the petitioners were regularized w.e.f. 1.8.1984. The respondent No.3 had circulated a seniority list vide letter dated 18.2.1988 Annexure A -2 but the seniority list had not reflected correct positions of petitioners, they represented against seniority list circulated vide letter dated 18.2.1988, the error was rectified by respondent No.2 vide memo dated 23.5.1988 Annexure A -4. In the seniority list circulated with memo dated 23.5.1988 the petitioners were shown at proper places.

(3.) THE respondents No.1 to 3 without deciding the representations of the petitioners issued another seniority list of timber /resin watchers on 25.7.1991 as its stood on 1.4.1991 vide memo dated 25.7.1991 Annexure A -7 of respondent No.2. The respondents had not applied their mind while framing seniority list circulated vide memo dated 25.7.1991 Annexure A -7. The petitioners represented on 7.8.1991 against seniority list circulated vide memo dated 25.7.1991. The representation of the petitioners was rejected vide memo dated 9.10.1991. This was challenged by way of Original Application No.15 of 1992 before erstwhile Tribunal. On 3.4.1992 the Tribunal had ordered that Original Application be treated as an appeal to the Board of Directors of respondent No.1 -Corporation and the same be decided after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. The respondent No.1 has ultimately decided the appeal and conveyed the decision to the petitioners vide memo dated 25.11.1993 Annexure A -10.