JAI PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has passed his matriculation examination in the year 1984 and thereafter did ITI Diploma in Motor Mechanic in the year 1988. The petitioner enrolled himself with Employment Exchange Arki, District Solan and his name was sponsored by the the said Exchange for the post of Pump Operator in the respondent-Department. The petitioner appeared in the interview and got selected and vide Annexure A-3, appointed as Pump Operator with the respondentDepartment. The petitioner joined his duties with the respondent-Department on 01.09.1992 and continuously worked till 23.06.2002. However, in the meantime, the wife of the petitioner made a complaint against him, for which he was tried and ultimately found guilty under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and resultantly convicted. The judgment of conviction was upheld by this Hon'ble High Court. Consequently, the petitioner underwent the sentence of one year w.e.f. 24.06.2002 to 17.05.2003 and since the petitioner was absent from the duties during the aforesaid period, the respondent-Department issued a show cause notice against him. However, the petitioner could not reply the aforesaid notice, as at that time he was in jail. After undergoing the sentence, the petitioner submitted his representation (Annexure A-4) to Assistant Engineer, Irrigation and Public Health Department, Solan, requesting for his re-engagement as Pump Operator. Thereafter, vide Annexure A-5, the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation and Public Health Circle, Nahan, wrote a letter to respondent No. 2, requesting that there is no legal bar to re-engage the petitioner on daily wage basis, as per instructions of the office, and sought permission to re-engage him as Pump Operator, considering his past services. Respondent No. 2, vide Annexure A-6, asked Superintendent Engineer, I&PH Circle, Nahan, to do the needful in light of the instructions, issued vide office letter No. IPH-ES-III D.W. Employ/03-20061-20161 dated 27.02.2004, for engagement of the petitioner, for 89 days, on daily wage basis. However, neither the petitioner was re-engaged as Pump Operator, nor as Beldar on daily wage basis. The petitioner has though submitted several representations to different authorities, including the respondents, but the respondents, without any plausible reason kept the matter pending and did not take any decision upon the same, thus, feeling aggrieved by the acts and conduct of the respondents, he approached the erstwhile learned Administrative Tribunal by way of filing OA No. 4643/2015, which, on being transferred to this Court, is now registered as CWPOA No. 6084/2019.

(2.) In reply to the petition, it is admitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wage basis as Pump Operator with the respondent-Department. It is averred in the reply that the petitioner did not turn up on work w.e.f. 24.06.2002, as such, he was issued notice, Annexure R-1, dated 20.07.2002, asking him to attend the duties immediately and explain his position regarding absence from the duties. Thus, it has come to the notice of the respondent-Department that the petitioner has been convicted by the Court in a criminal case and, therefore, treated as terminated from the services from the date of his absence. Though, after serving the sentence the petitioner requested for his re-engagement on daily wage basis and his case was taken up with the higher authorities, but considering that the petitioner having been convicted and undergone imprisonment, was not re-engaged on daily wages.

(3.) In rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondentsState the contents of the petition were reasserted.