RAMESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have sought judicial review of order dated 24th August, 1999, passed by H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, whereby original application filed by the petitioners for quashing of order dated 31st July, 1987 (Annexure P -7) has been dismissed. Learned Tribunal is alleged to have not appreciated the legal position, applicable to the facts of the case, in right perspective.

(2.) WE may notice the relevant facts. Prior to the establishment of Himachal Road Transport Corporation (in short the Corporation) in the year 1974, there was a Transport Department, known as Himachal Government Transport. Petitioners were recruited as Booking Clerks by Himachal Government Transport. Petitioner No. 1 was recruited on 15th May, 1969, while petitioner No. 2 was recruited on September 13, 1967. Petitioners claim that even though their selection and recruitment was made, as per Recruitment and Selection Rules and they were duly selected by the Selection Committee, yet their appointments were given the nomenclature of ad hoc appointments for the reasons that the posts, against which they were appointed, were temporary and not permanent. In the year 1974, when the Corporation was set up under the provisions of Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 (for short the Act), services of those employees of Himachal Government Transport, were transferred to the said Corporation. Government of Himachal Pradesh issued instructions, dated 1st October, 1974 (Annexure P -2) in exercise of power under Section 34 of the Act. The said instructions, inter alia, provided that inter se seniority of the employees of Himachal Government Transport, who were transferred to the Corporation, would remain intact, as it existed on 1.10.1974. Petitioners names did not figure in the seniority list of Clerks of Himachal Government Transport employees because, according to their appointment letters, they were ad hoc appointees. It appears that on transfer of their services to Corporation, the petitioners alongwith other ad hoc employees, numbering 68, made representations to the Authorities of the Corporation for the regularization of their services from the dates of their initial appointments, i.e. appointments on ad hoc basis. Corporation appears to have forwarded those representations to the Government and the Government took the decision on 9th July, 1984 (Annexure P -3) that services of Clerks and Conductors, who had been appointed on ad hoc basis on the establishment of Himachal Government Transport and whose services stood transferred to the Corporation, be regularized from the dates of their initial appointments by holding reviewed D.P.C. The decision was conveyed to the authorities of the Corporation, who acting upon the said decision passed order dated 5.4.1986 (Annexure P -4),. regularizing the services of 32 employees from the dates of their initial appointments. Services of petitioner Joginder Singh were regularized from 13.9.1967 and those of petitioner Rameshwar Singh from 15.5.1969. Directions were issued to the concerned officers of the Corporation to re -cast the seniority list, showing the names of the petitioners at appropriate points in such list. These instructions were issued vide letter dated 19th April, 1986 (Annexure P -5). It appears that thereafter seniority of all the Clerks, working with the Corporation, was recast and on the basis of re -cast seniority, petitioners were given promotions as Assistants vide order dated 29th June, 1987 (Annexure P -6). On 31st July, 1987 Corporation issued orders withdrawing the order dated 19th April, 1986 (Annexure P -7), whereby on account of regularization of services of the petitioners from the dates of their initial appointments, seniority of all the clerks had been ordered to be re -cast. Before taking this decision (Annexure P -7), show cause notices were issued on the petitioners, which are Annexures P -8 and P8 -2. They filed replies, one of which is (Annexure P -9).

(3.) RESPONDENTS opposed the original application and took the plea that Government had no authority to direct the Corporation, vide letter dated 9th July, 1984 (Annexure P -3), to regularize the services of the petitioners and 66 other employees from the dates of their ad hoc appointments. It appears that before the Tribunal, a submission was made that Annexure P -3 had been issued by the Government in exercise of the power under Section 34 of the Act. The plea did not find favour with the Tribunal. Also the Tribunal noticed its earlier judgment dated 3.5.1991 in Naginder Lal v. H.R.T.C. and others in TA -155/87, and concluded that as held in the said judgment, the Government did not have the power to direct the H.R.T.C. to regularize the services of the petitioner, (who was an Inspector in that case), from the date of his ad hoc appointment and that the said direction did not fall within the purview of Section 34 of the Act.