OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the petition has been filed for grant of twofold reliefs vide para 7(i) and (ii), yet at the time of hearing it has been restricted only qua the first relief, which is as under: The Respondents be directed to pay the difference of wages of Beldar and Supervisor for the period of 10/10/1996 and 31/12/2000, which wages were revised from time to time. This difference be directed to be paid with interest at the penal rate.

(2.) IN reply on behalf of the Respondents, which is lying in Part -B of the case file, the following stand has been taken vide para 6(b): In reply to this para it is submitted that as per the requirement of work the applicant was engaged as Supervisor w.e.f. 12 -6 -91 and as such he worked up to 30 -6 -92. Thereafter he was asked to work as Beldar i.e. in the capacity in which he had worked earlier during 21 -12 -89 to 7 -6 -91 on completion of plantation work. The applicant did not agree to it i.e. to work as Beldar and left the job at his own will. As such no termination of the services of the applicant was done by the Respondent department.

(3.) IT is manifest from the man days chart Annexure R -1 to the above reply to the miscellaneous application for amendment that the Petitioner had initially joined the employment of the Respondent -department as Class -IV employee (beldar) in the year 1989. Later on, in 1991 after working as a Class -IV hand for 79 days, he was designated as a Class -III official (supervisor) and continued working as such upto the year 1997, when abruptly in that year he is shown to have been reverted to Class -IV post and is shown to have worked as such upto the year 2000. Thereafter, again in 2001 onwards he is shown to have been working as Class -III official. The abrupt change in the status of the Petitioner from Class -III to Class -IV in the year 1997 appears to have been as a result of order dated 10.10.1996, Annexure PB, passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (since abolished), when the matter was before the said Tribunal and has since been transferred to this Court, wherein the designation of the Petitioner was incorrectly mentioned as 'beldar ', which mistake was later on rectified by the said Tribunal by way of review vide order dated 6.9.2000, Annexure PC. It appears that by taking undue benefit of the aforesaid mistake in the order of the Tribunal the Respondent -department changed the designation of the Petitioner from supervisor (Class -III) to beldar (Class -IV) and did not rectify the mistake even after the same was undone by the Tribunal by reviewing its earlier order dated 10.10.1996. This state of affairs, which on the face of it has no lawful basis, cannot be allowed to persist.