LAWS(HPH)-2019-10-218

SHER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Decided On October 18, 2019
SHER SINGH Appellant
V/S
Union of India And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an ex-service man after having discharged from the Indian Army on completion of qualifying service on 31.10.2009, as is apparent from the certificate of discharge, Annexure P-2, was appointed as Chowkidar vide order dated 15.07.2014, Annexure P-3 under the Ex-servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the 'scheme' in short) in ECHS Polyclinic Type-D, Dehra Gopipur, District Kangra, initially for a period of one year. He executed agreement, Annexure R-2 dated 1.8.2014. Subsequently, extension upto 1.8.2016 was granted in his favour on execution of fresh agreement, Annexure R-3 by him. The 3rd and last extension was granted to him till he completes the age of 55 years vide Annexure R-4 to the reply.

(2.) The respondents have advertised the post of Chowkidar occupied by the petitioner vide advertisement, Annexure P-4. The petitioner aggrieved by the issuance of fresh advertisement to fill-up the post of Chowkidar occupied by him has preferred this writ petition with the following prayers:

(3.) The relief has been sought on the grounds inter-alia that he is working as Chowkidar to the entire satisfaction of the respondents. There is no complaint against him. Also that, in a similar case registered as CWP No. 4 of 2017 titled Bir Pal vs. Union of India and others, this Court by way of an interim order has restrained the respondents from making fresh selection. Also that, against the dismissal of the Civil Writ Petition No. 9093 of 2014 titled Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India vide judgment dated 2.12.2016, SLP No. 36359 of 2016 titled Sonu Kumar vs. Union of India was filed. The Apex Court vide order dated 15.12.2016 has ordered to maintain status quo and the respondents were directed not to make any fresh appointment to the post(s) held by said Shri Sonu Kumar. The petitioner allegedly has been selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee, therefore, appointment of respondent No.4 in his place is stated to be wrong, illegal and arbitrary.