NAGAR PANCHAYAT DAULATPUR CHOWK Vs. KEWAL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Letter Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 14.12.2010, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP (T) No.6077 of 2008, (for short 'impugned judgment'), whereby learned Single, while allowing the petition having been preferred by respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') directed the respondent-appellant(hereinafter referred to as the respondent No.2) to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Supervisor in one month from the date of supply of copy of this judgment by the petitioner and appoint him as Supervisor within two weeks thereafter. The learned Single Judge also held respondent No.2 liable to pay the wages of the petitioner as Mate w. e. f. 2.4.1998 to 28.4.1998.

(2.) Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record are that the petitioner was engaged as Mate on daily wages in Aug., 1996 by the respondent No.2 and as such, he continued to wok till Sept., 1997 when respondent No.2 submitted a proposal for regularization of petitioner as Mate. However, fact remains that Director, Urban Development in response to the communication dated 24.7.1997 sent letter dated 24.10.1997 to the President of respondent No.2 observing therein that Sec. 53(1) (c) of the H.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (sic) provides that the total expenditure on establishment should not exceed one third of the total expenditure of the municipality. Aforesaid department further observed that since Nagar Panchayat, Daulatpur Chowk does not fulfil the said condition, therefore, department regret to concur with the proposal for the creation of regular post of Mate. However, perusal of aforesaid communication sent by the Director, Urban Development clearly suggests that it was specifically observed that existing incumbent Kewal Kumar shall continue to work as Mate on daily wages. It also emerge from the record that appellant-respondent taking undue advantage of aforesaid communication having been sent by the Director Urban Development made petitioner to enter into an agreement for the post of Mate on a consolidated pay of Rs. 1500.00 for a period of six months. Accordingly, he was appointed as Mate on contract basis. Subsequently, on 1.5.1998, respondent No.2 terminated the services of the petitioner and he was not paid the wages from 1.4.1998 to 30.4.1998, despite the fact that he had worked for the said period after the expiry of contract period also.

(3.) It also emerge from the record that after alleged termination of the petitioner, respondent No.2 engaged one Madan Lal as Mate, as a result of which, petitioner was compelled to file Original Application No. 1021 of 1998 in H.P. Administrative Tribunal. During the pendency of aforesaid original application before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.2 passed a resolution and resolved that service of the petitioner, who had been working as Mate, be engaged as Supervisor on the condition of his withdrawing the case filed in the Tribunal. The petitioner on the basis of aforesaid resolution, withdrew the original application but despite that appellant/department failed to engage petitioner as Supervisor in view of the resolution, as referred above. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner filed the instant OA No.2629 of 1999, which later-on came to be registered as CWP(T) No.6077 of 2008.