Photo used for indicative purpose only. Source internet
State cannot be permitted to act as an exploitative master : HP High court
[responsivevoice_button voice=”UK English Male”]
Shimla, Oct 31
Himachal Pradesh High court directed the state finance department to provide all the arrears of monetary benefit to petitioners who are the employees of state government, accusing the latter of depriving them under the guise of contractual appointment .
The Division bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bipen Chander Negi has ordered in the eight page order passed recently that state could not be permitted to act as an exploitative master.
The bench delivered this verdict before the Court Dussehra Holiday. The court held that petitioners are entitled for the counting their services from date of initial appointments on the contract for the purpose of seniority and all consequential benefits as Initial appointment should be provided to them including their contractual period. The court said that in sequel to entitlement for counting contract service for seniority of the petitioners should also be entitled for counting the said contract service for the purpose of granting annual increment and pensionary benefits.
The DB held that such conduct is anti-thesis of the mandates under article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court made strong remarks against the respondent government of Himachal Pradesh that such arbitrary conduct does not behove to the state being a model employer and protector of right of the people .
The court also stated that state cannot and cannot be permitted to act as an exploitative master by cleverly devising a method under the garb of provisions of R & P rules by providing contractual appointment at initial stage to deprive the service benefits.
The court said that undoubtedly the contract appointment of the petitioners was not back door entry but was made following R& P rules framed by the state for direct recruitment against the said post. The appointment of the petitioners on the contract basis was a fortuitous circumstances because the department took a decision not to grant regular appointment at initial stage.
The HC said that substantive appointment made against the sanctioned post through a process under taken by the prescribed agency for recruitment under rules through competitive process where in all eligible candidates were considered and evaluated.
There is no justifiable and plausible reason available on the record for not offering regular appointment at initial stage but to offer appointment on contract basis for the initial five years followed by the regularisation despite availability of sanctioned posts and work and assignment and performance of identical nature of work and duties by the contract appointees as well as regular appointees.
” It appears in order to avoid its liability to pay salary attached to the post and to deprive the employees from lawful service benefits liable to them, the exploitive policy of contract appointment for initial five years has been and being adopted and practices. ” held the DB.
The court also made remarks ‘’ It is not a case where for sudden temporary increase in work load, employees were required and necessitated to be engaged to cope with the emergent situation for a limited period but recruitment was for permanent sanctioned posts created for the performance of ever existing work . ”
It is not expected from the state to deprive the employees from the lawful and just benefits emanating from service rendered by them.
The court stated that the claim of petitioners for counting their contract service is securely covered by aforesaid judgement in Tej Mohammad’s case and judgement referred and relied there in. The DB said that reasons and the grounds assigned for deciding the aforesaid Writ Petion (2017) should be applicable ‘mutatis mutandis’ in the present case for all intents and purposes.
The court did not accept the contention of Additional Advocate General who relied up on the Jai Dev Gupta v/s State of Himachal Pradesh case. The Respondent stated that actual monetary benefits to be restricted for three years period to filing of the petition as the petitioners have approached the court at belated stage.
The court held that submission of state is not sustainable as petitioners were regularised in May 2016 but without giving the benefit of their contractual services and they have approached the court in April 2017. The court said that it did not find any delay redressal of their grievances and they should be entitled for all consequential benefit from the date of their initial appointment.
The Petitioner in Chaman Lal and others v/s state had approached the court seeking various relief with respect of fixation and protection of pay, granting of Grade Pay and consequential benefits.
According to the petitioners they are appointed as Tehsil Welfare Officers in the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment by the state government in May 2010 on the contract basis. The services of the petitioners regularised on May 5, 2016 after completion of request fiver years continuous contractual services.
The court said that all the benefits including seniority should be settled and extended to the petitioner on or before December 31 ,2023 and payment of arears of monetary benefits maybe be disbursed by the respondents.
About the Author
The HimachalScape Bureau comprises seasoned journalists from Himachal Pradesh with over 25 years of experience in leading media conglomerates such as The Times of India and United News of India. Known for their in-depth regional insights, the team brings credible, research-driven, and balanced reportage on Himachal’s socio-political and developmental landscape.
Your article helped me a lot, is there any more related content? Thanks!