KUSHAL CHAND Vs. STATE OF H. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims that since he has, within the domain, of, the pronouncement made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in, a case titled, as, Mool Raj Upadhaya vs. State of H.P & others, 1994 Supp2 SCC 316, hence completed 10 years of rendition(s) of daily waged service(s), under, the respondents, (i) thereupon, the rejection of his claim, for conferment, of, work charge status upon him, is un-vindicable, and, hence he prays that Annexure A-1, be quashed, and, he be granted, the, espoused relief, by this Court.

(2.) This Court would countenance, the afore made contention, before this Court, by the petitioner, upon, his satisfying the relevant parameters, as, become enshrined in the afore judgment, (i) in as much as, in all the 10 years of services, under, the respondents, more precisely in each, of, the relevant calendar year(s), his completing 240 days of continuous service. However, a perusal of the reply discloses that he has not completed 240 days of continuous service, in the calendar year(s) appertaining to 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1997, and, hence the afore espoused contention, is, un-amenable, for acceptance, by this Court.

(3.) However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the afore non-completion(s) of continuous service, in as much, as, of 240 days of continuous service, in each of the afore calendar years, being a sequel, of, untenable fictional and artificial breaks being intentionally administered, by the respondent-employer, rather merely for making malafide disruption(s), in, the continuity, of, his service. In making the afore made contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has made reliance, upon, a judgment rendered in a case titled, as, Mohd. Abdul kadir and another versus Director General of Police, Assam and others, 2009 6 SCC 611, wherein the afore administered fictional breaks become frowned, upon, by the Hon'ble Apex Court. However a deep reading of the afore judgment, does not carry forward, the espousal made before this Court, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as, therein rather through a circular, the afore made breaks, become enjoined to be administered, vis-a-vis, the employees therein, and, (a) thereupon perse, hence, a conclusion became sparked, vis-a-vis, the administered breaks, as, made rather causing untenable disruption(s), in, the continuity, of, service, of, the employees. Contrarily hereat there, is, no circular placed, on, record by the learned counsel for the petitioner, hence, wherethrough the respondent concerned, has meted fictional breaks, for, therethrough his causing untenable disruption(s), in, the petitioner's hence rendering continuous service of 240 days, rather in each, of, the relevant calendar year(s), precisely respectively, in, the year(s) 1993, 1994, 1995, and, 1997. Consequently for, lack of placing on record, a, circular analogous to the one existing before the Hon'ble Apex Court, and, whereon(s) the afore judgment, became rendered, does obviously, beget an inference, qua, the hereat made breaks, in service neither becoming ingrained with any malafides reared by the respondents, to, therethrough, theirs ensuring disruption(s), being caused in the continuity, of, service of the petitioner, under, the respondents, merely for dis-empowering him to claim, the, benefit of Mool Raj Upadhaya case supra.