BELI RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was engaged as a Mining Guard on daily wage basis on 12.3.1974. He worked in the same capacity till 16.6.1974. His services were terminated. However, he was re-engaged on 27.6.1974. Thereafter he again remained willfully absent from 12.9.1975 to 3.12.1975. He was re-engaged on 4.12.1975. His name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Theog for the post of Mining Guard. He was appointed contingent paid Mining Guard pursuant to which he joined his duties on 21.6.1976. He was interviewed on 25.5.1976 and thereafter regular post was offered to him on 19.7.1976 as Mining Guard. He joined his duties on 26.7.1976. Private respondents were also regularized as Mining Guard on 19.7.1976. Tentative seniority list of Mining Guards of Geological Wing, as it stood on 31.10.1989, was issued by the respondent-Department on 30.1.1990, vide Annexure A-5. Petitioner ranked below the private respondents. He made representation against the seniority list on 20.6.1992. He served a legal notice on the respondent-State on 8.4.1993. Another seniority list, as it stood on 31.12.1992, was issued vide Annexure A-9. Private respondents again ranked senior to the petitioner. Petitioner approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance by filing OA No.1973/1993. The same was disposed of by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by treating the same as representation to the Secretary (Industries). He rejected the same on 16.8.1994 vide Annexure A-10. Thereafter another tentative seniority list of Mining Guard of Geological Wing, as it stood on 31.12.1992, was issued on 1.5.1995. Petitioner made representation against the same to the State Geologist on 31.5.1995.

(2.) Mr. Dilip Sharma has strenuously argued that since his client has been appointed on the basis of the recommendations made by the Selection committee, he should rank above the private respondents in all the seniority lists issued with effect from 31.10.1989 onwards.

(3.) Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that private respondents have started working as Mining Guards before the petitioner. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the details of engagement of the private respondents in para 6 (4) of the reply.