RAM RATTAN Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the fourth round of litigation for the petitioners in this Court. The first started with CWP (T) No. 3907 of 2008, which was filed by the first petitioner and CWP (T) No. 4990 of 2008 was filed by the second petitioner before the State Administrative Tribunal in the year 1996 which cases were transferred to this Court after the abolition of the Tribunal. Those writ petitions were disposed of by this Court on 24.11.2010. The Court notes that two prayers had been made by the petitioners herein. The first was for payment of salary as a regular Supervisor from the date of the institution of the petition and arrears from January, 1986 in accordance with the Notification issued by the State Government. This, monetary benefit was claimed with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The second direction sought was with respect to regularization of the services of the petitioners as Supervisors from the date from which they started discharging duties as such, which was supported by experience certificates issued by the first respondent. This Court took note of the pleadings in reply filed by the respondent Municipal Corporation which in brief were that the petitioner had been engaged as Beldar in the year 1986 and did not discharge the duties of Supervisor. Nonetheless, there were certain certificates on record contrary to what stand was taken for which purpose the Corporation had initiated steps for issuing notices to the officers to show as to on what basis these certificates had been issued. The other submission made was that the petitioner Ram Rattan was working as Beldar/Mate on Muster Roll basis and therefore, the question of granting him pay as Supervisor did not arise at all. This Court then directed that in view of the reply, if there is any surviving grievance, it would be open to the petitioner to file a representation alongwith additional documents and a copy of the judgment before the respondents for consideration in accordance with law. Representation was to be filed within a month and the Corporation was thereafter directed to look into the case and take appropriate action in accordance with law by affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and the representation to be decided within three months. A positive direction was issued that the respondent would look into the fact situation and then a considered decision taken as to whether in the case of one Shri Ramesh Thakur (respondent No. 4 herein), who was also similarly situated with the petitioner, (fact situation being common) and who was junior to the petitioner, has since been regularized as Supervisor, as was apparent from the note/report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla, which has been brought on record along with affidavit of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla, filed in terms of order dated 22.4.2010 passed by this Court in connected petition CWP (T) No. 4990 of 2008 (OA No. 501 of 1998) and also taking into consideration the certificate Annexure A -2 to the effect that the petitioner has in fact worked as daily paid Supervisor since 1986. Consequential benefit, if any, shall follow the decision on the representation.

(2.) IN the companion petition Ramji Dass v. Municipal Corporation (petitioner No. 2 in this case) CWP (T) No. 4990 of 2008, similar directions were passed by this Court on the same date. Subsequently, a detailed representation was submitted by each of the petitioners herein enclosing the order passed by this Court. The representation can be paraphrased, thus: - the petitioner had passed matriculation examination in the year 1985, joined the Corporation in January, 1986 and worked as Supervisor. He submitted the entire record with the representation stating that the work of Supervisor had been assigned and performed by him but he was paid the salary of a mazdoor. He then stated that according to the Notification of the State, applicable in the Department of Public Works (which applied to the Municipal Corporation), if after two years of service an incumbent has also passed matriculation, he is eligible to be promoted as Supervisor. The record was with the Corporation substantiating the case of the petitioner. A Resolution was passed by the Municipal Corporation whereby sanction was accorded for six posts of Supervisor. He then states that initially he had filed writ petition in the High Court being CWP No. 1537 of 1995 which was disposed of on 29.10.1996, holding that it was service matter and, therefore, this Court did not have jurisdiction to try the case. Consequently, OA No. 1846 of 1986 was filed by him in the Tribunal. The petitioner pointed out that in case there were no posts of Supervisor available then the stand of the Corporation in the case of Shri Ramesh Thakur (Respondent No. 4 herein), who was also engaged as daily wager and thereafter was regularized as a Supervisor, is not correct. This Ramesh Thakur was junior to him and in this eventuality there was a clear breach of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner had requested to call for the muster rolls to ascertain these facts. He also stated that a few mazdoors have been promoted as clerks and specifically named them. Shri Ramesh Thakur, according to him, was a regular beldar and was junior to him. Though the posts were available but he (petitioner) had not been regularized. To similar effect is the representation filed by the second petitioner.

(3.) CMP No. 179 of 2011 in CWP (T) No. 4990 of 2008, titled: Ram Ji Das v. Municipal Corporation, Shimla, was filed by the respondents stating therein that the order passed by the Commissioner stating: - -