NAND LAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since it was stated that common questions of law based on identical facts are involved in all these original applications, therefore, arguments were jointly heard in all these applications and these are being dealt with -as per their merits by this common order.

(2.) At the very outset of the arguments the learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that Civil Appeal Nos. 3595/3612 of 1999 is pending before the Honble Apex Court wherein similar questions as may arise for consideration in these original applications are involved and a Contempt Petition arising out of non -implementation of the orders passed by this Tribunal has also not been finally disposed of by the Apex court in view of the pendency of Civil Appeal titled State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and others. Therefore, in view of the pendency of aforesaid matters all the matters claiming relief on the basis of judgment in Mool Raj Upadhayayas case may be stayed till the above Civil Appeals and Contempt Petition are disposed of by the Apex Court.

(3.) We have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General and learned Counsel for the applicants on this preliminary submission. It is admitted position that proceedings in any of the matters in hand have not been stayed by the Honble Supreme Court. It is also not in dispute that in the aforesaid cases the validity of the judgment delivered by the Honble Apex Court in Moot Raj Upadhayayas case has not been called in question. The question as formulated for consideration in aforesaid appeals are whether the employees appointed dehors the rules can be made permanent or could be directed to be regularised or absorbed in service and how for the appointments made dehors the service rules or in breach of statutory provisions contained in the act or rules can be recognised by the Courts and accorded judicial approval. In most of the cases in hand neither the question of regularising the applicants on permanent basis or confirming them as is done in case of regularly appointed employees nor regularisation or absorption in regular service has been claimed. In most of the cases in hand the claim is for giving work charge status to the applicants as per the judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhayaya v. State of H.P. and others, 1994(2) SLR 377. It may be pointed out that regularisation of services as permanent, confirmation in service, to absorb in service are the acts with which the grant of "work charged status" cannot be equated. Therefore, in the absence of any stay order or suspension of the operation of the judgment in Mool Raj Upadhayayas case (supra), the further proceedings in these original applications cannot be ordered to be stayed. The submission to stay further proceedings in these cases is therefore, not allowed.