DURGA RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PER K.C. Sood, J: - 1. This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment of the State Administrative Tribunal dated July 14, 1997 and subsequent order of the Tribunal in Contempt Petition No. 48 of 1997 dated October 1, 1997 with a prayer that the Respondents be directed to re -engage the Petitioner.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the controversy, relevant facts may be noted: The Petitioner approached the State Administrative Tribunal with a grievance that he was appointed as Air Compressor Operator on November 1, 1992, in the Department of Irrigation and Public Health, and was posted in Kaza Sub Division (Lahaul & Spiti District). He worked continuously as such in the Department of Irrigation and Public Health from November 1, 1992 to December 31, 1996. His services were terminated with effect from January 1, 1997 without any notice to him. He further alleges that his junior was retained who was engaged as Air Compressor Operator in May, 1995.

(3.) THE Tribunal found that the applicant had worked intermittently as Operator. He worked for the first time in August, 1994, thereafter worked from April, 1995 till December, 1995 and lastly from May, 1996 to October, 1996. The Tribunal noticed that the Petitioner failed to join duties from January, 1997 onwards and accordingly dismissed his Original Application. However, the Tribunal observed that dismissal of his application would not be an impediment in his re -engagement on daily wage basis by the Respondents.