CHARNO RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:

(2.) The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that he was working as part time Sweeper in Government Polytechnic, Banikhet, District Chamba, H.P. His appointment was under the scheme of 'Student Welfare Fund'. Respondent No.8 conducted the examination for its students from 5/12/2017 to 5/1/2018. The examination centre was in the fourth floor of newly constructed building of said respondent. No toilet facility was available at fourth floor as the toilets were under construction. Petitioner was directed by respondent No.8 to arrange a 'drum' (container) to be kept outside examination centre for enabling the students to urinate in the improvised container. He was further directed to empty the drum on the first floor by carrying the same down from fourth floor. Petitioner showed his inability to undertake the assigned job, but he was forced to do the same. Thus, the petitioner was made to perform the inhuman act continuously right from 05/12/2017 to 5/1/2018. Petitioner further alleged that while performing his duty, as above, he had a fall on the staircase and had suffered injuries. The incident was published in vernacular newspaper 'Punjab Kesari' (Chamba Edition) on 30/12/2017. Petitioner represented to Hon'ble the Chief Minister and Hon'ble the Chief Justice seeking justice, but his grievance was not redressed, forcing him to file the instant petition.

(3.) In response submitted on behalf of respondents No. 3, 4 and 7, it has been submitted that the building of Government Polytechnic, Banikhet was inaugurated in July, 2017 and classes were shifted to the new campus w.e.f. August, 2017. The factum of petitioner working as part time Sweeper in Government Polytechnic, Banikhet during the year 2017 is not denied. Rather, it is submitted that he was engaged on part time basis since 2011 and his services were taken on contract w.e.f. 6/2/2019. An inquiry was conducted at institutional level and another inquiry was conducted by the Tehsildar, Dalhousie. Respondents 5 and 6 have also taken a stand that inquiry was conducted by the Tehsildar and in their words the allegations of petitioner were found "baseless, meritless, frivolous and far away from reality".