Himachal Pradesh High Court
Deep Ram vs Municipal Corporation on 7 January, 2025
2025:HHC:3006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
CWPOA No.:6609 of 2020 with
CWPOA No. 6552, 6555, 6608
and 6612 of 2020
Decided on: 07.01.2025
__________________________________________________________
CWPOA No. 6609 of 2020
Deep Ram …..Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation, Shimla ……Respondents
and another
CWPOA No. 6552 of 2020
Satish Kumar …..Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation, Shimla ……Respondents
and another
CWPOA No. 6555 of 2020
Tara Chand …..Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation, Shimla ……Respondents
and another
CWPOA No. 6608 of 2020
Dutt Bharti …..Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation, Shimla ……Respondents
and another
CWPOA No. 6612 of 2020
Prem Lal Sharma …..Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation, Shimla ……Respondents
and another
-2- 2025:HHC:3006
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting? No
For the petitioner(s): Mr. Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate.
(in all the petitions.)
For the respondents: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for
respondent No.1 (in all the
petitions.)
Mr. Tejasvi Dogra, Advocate, for
respondent No. 2 (in all the
petitions.)
Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that CWP No.6609 of 2020, titled as Deep Ram versus
Municipal Corporation, Shimla and another and other
connected cases may be taken up together as the
prayers made in Lead Case and connected cases is
identical. Prayer appears to be genuine is granted
and accordingly all the cases are taken up together
and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
FACTUAL MATRIX IN LEAD CASE – CWPOA NO.
6609 OF 2021:
2. Petitioner, Deep Ram, has come up before
this Court, seeking the following reliefs:
“7(a) That the respondent-corporation may kindly
be directed to grant the pay scale of Meter1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
-3- 2025:HHC:3006
Reader/clerk to the applicant w.e.f. due date
i.e. 05.04.2014 (Annexure A-2), on the
analogy of equal pay for equal work with all
consequential benefits, in the interest of
justice.
7(b). That the applicant may kindly be held
entitled for regularization as Meter Reader
instead of Mazdoor by modifying the
regularization order at Annexure A-1 only to
the extent of designation, with all
consequential benefits, in the interest of
justice.”
2(i). The grievance of the petitioner is that
petitioner was engaged as Meter Reader/Clerk on
daily wage basis in April, 2000 by the respondent
No.1 Municipal Corporation, Shimla and Respondent-
Corporation has extracted the work of Meter
Reader/Clerk since his initial engagement but the
respondent-Corporation issued an order on
09.11.2016 [Annexure A-1] regularizing the petitioner
as Mazdoor (Class-IV) w.e.f. 1.4.2009 instead of Meter
Reader (Class-III) on completion of eight years of
continuous service on higher post of Meter Reader
(Class-III). It is averred that as per order dated
05.04.2014 [Annexure A-2] Respondent Corporation
has extracted the work of Meter Reader/Clerk from the
petitioner.
2(ii). In this background, the claim of the
-4- 2025:HHC:3006
petitioner is that once the petitioner has been made
to work as Reader/Clerk (Class-III) since his initial
engagement on daily wage basis from April, 2000
then the petitioner deserves to be regularized
as Meter Reader/Clerk from the date of completion
of eight years instead of regularizing him on lower
post of Mazdoor [Class-IV) on 09.11.2016 [Annexure
A-1] w.e.f. 01.04.2009 and in these circumstances
petitioner has prayed for retrospective regularization
with all service benefits including pay in applicable
pay scale of Meter Reader/Clerk with pay fixation and
other service benefits.
STAND OF RESPONDENTS-CORPORATION IN
CWPOA NO. 6609 OF 2021:
3. Upon issuance of notice, the Respondent-
Municipal Corporation has filed a Reply-Affidavit dated
28.09.2021 of Commissioner, Municipal Corporation,
Shimla.
3(i). In Para 3 and 6(i) of reply-affidavit
respondent-Corporation has taken a specific stand
that the petitioner was initially engaged as Mazdoor
on daily wage basis in Road and Building Department
of respondent Corporation w.e.f. 01.04.2000. It is
-5- 2025:HHC:3006
further averred in reply that in terms of the orders
dated 30.05.2016 the petitioner was regularized as
Mazdoor w.e.f. 01.04.2009 on completion of eight
years of continuous daily wage basis. Reply-affidavit
further indicates that Respondent-Corporation has
never engaged the petitioner on daily wage basis.
Reply affidavit specifically denies that the respondent-
Corporation has extracted the work of Meter Reader
by petitioner since his initial engagement. Para 6(iv)
of reply further indicates that so far as the
communication dated 05.04.2014 is concerned, the
same is of no assistance to the petitioner in view
of the fact that the petitioner was neither engaged nor
was he ever made to work as Meter Reader/Clerk
(Class-III) but the petitioner was deployed for assisting
the Meter Reading Staff for specific purpose of
verification of water meters and that too for a short
period from 28.06.2014 to 26.07.2014 [24 working
days], as is borne out from Annexure A-2. Reply
affidavit specifically denies that petitioner had worked
as Meter Reader/Clerk in Respondent-Corporation.
Operative part of the reply reads as under:-
-6- 2025:HHC:3006
6(i). That the contents of Para 6(i) of the
petition are wrong and hence denied. It is
denied that the petitioner was engaged
as Meter Reader on daily wage w.e.f.
01.04.2000. It is also denied that the
respondent Corporation has always
extracted the work of Meter
Reader/Clerk from the petitioner since
his initial engagement as alleged. It is
submitted that petitioner was engaged as
Mazdoor on daily wages in Road and
Building Department of the respondent
Corporation on 01.04.2000 and as such
after completion of 8 years of daily wage
service with 240 in a calendar year his
service was regularized from retrospective
effect i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.2009 vide order
dated 30.05.2016. Moreover, it is
submitted that the order dated
09.11.2016 is a pay fixation order of the
petitioner and not a regularization order
from retrospective effect.
6(iv) That the contents of Para 6(iv) of the
petition are wrong and hence denied. As
already submitted in Para 6(i) & (iii) of the
petition that the petitioner was engaged
as Mazdoor on daily wages basis in Road
and Building Department of respondent
Corporation w.e.f. 01.04.2000 and his
services were regularized as Mazdoor on
completion of 8 years daily wage services
with 240 days in a calendar year from
retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.2009.
Hence, the question of working
continuously and uninterruptedly as
Meter Reader does not arise. So far as
order dated 05.04.2014 is concerned, it is
submitted that the petitioner was attached
to the Meter Reader in order to assist him
in meter reading work vide order dated
04.06.2011 and as such the petitioner
cannot claim that he is successfully
working as Meter Reader. Further, the
petitioner can also not claim that he is
-7- 2025:HHC:3006
discharging the duties of Meter Reader
on the strength of Annexure A-3.”
APPLICATION BY RESPONDENT-CORPOARTION
FOR PLACING ON RECORD ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS:
4. Respondent-Corporation has filed an
application [CMP-T No. 933/2024] on the affidavit
dated 10.09.2024 of Municipal Corporation, Shimla for
placing on record additional documents. Respondent-
Corporation has placed on record a copy of Original
Application No. 1501 of 2015 filed before State
Administrative Tribunal in June, 2015 [Annexure R-
1/1] by taking a specific stand in Para 6(i) and 6(ii)
of the application and affidavit in above OA that the
petitioner continued in service of Respondent-
Corporation as daily waged Mazdoor w.e.f. 24.04.2000
for the last 13 years and deserves to be granted benefit
of regularization as Mazdoor (Class-IV) on completion
of 8 years continuous service w.e.f. 31.03.2009,
in terms of judgement passed by Division Bench of this
Court in Rakesh Kumar versus State of Himachal
Pradesh and others i.e. CWP No. 2735 of 2010. The
operative part of the stand of petitioner taken
in O.A.1501 of 2015 [Annexure R-1/1] admitting to
-8- 2025:HHC:3006
have been engaged as daily waged Mazdoor and also
worked as such and regularized as Mazdoor, reads as
under:
“6(I) That the applicant was initially engaged
as daily wager mazdoor w.e.f.
24.04.2000 in the respondent
department and continued to work till
the date of his regularization as daily
wager. Thereafter the applicant was
regularized w.e.f. 01.04.2010. Copy of
office order dated 01.04.2010 is annexed
herewith as Annexure A-1 and still the
applicant is continuing to work under the
Road and Building Department MC
Shimla. The applicant was regularized by
the respondent department on the ground
that applicant have completed his 8 years
service with 240 days in each calendar
year. It is further submitted that the
mason w.e.f. 24.04.2010 and he is entitled
for regularization w.e.f. 31.03.2009.6(III) That after having served for more than
13 years as Mazdoor on daily waged
basis, the respondent department has
given regularization to the applicant on
temporary basis for two years, whereas
on completion of 8 years of service
with 240 days, the applicant was
entitled to get the regularization
straightway as per the ratio in judgement
passed by the Hon’ble Court in case titled
as Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and
Som Nath versus State of H.P. passed by
the Hon’ble Court and in the present case,
the applicant was given 10 years of
service as daily wager Mazdoor, hence,
w.e.f. 31.03.2009 till the date of his
regularization, he is entitled to all the
eligible benefits but the action of the
respondent department are illegal,
-9- 2025:HHC:3006
unconstitutional and bad in the eyes of
law.”
4(i). Likewise, the Corporation has also placed
on record, copy of Contempt Petition No. 65 of 2015
[Annexure R-1/3] orders dated 22.04.2016 [Annexure
R-1/4] filed by State Administrative Tribunal whereby,
petitioner himself admitted to be working as Mazdoor
in the memo of parties and based on the directions
passed by State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.
1501 of 2015, claiming regularization as Mazdoor in
the respondent-Corporation.
In this background Respondent-Corporation
has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition in Lead
Case.
FACTUAL MATRIX IN CONNECTED CASES
[CWPOA No. 6552, 6555, 6608 and 6612 of
2020]
5. Based on the factual matrix in connected
matters, a Tabular Chart showing the details of
petitioners in connected cases reads as under:
Sr. Case No. & Date of Initial Date of Date of regularization
No. Name of Parties Engagement regularization as Mazdoor [Class-IV]
on daily-muster as Mazdoor on completion of 8
roll. [Class-IV] years continuous
service vide order
dated 1.12.2017
1. CWPOA No. Daily wage Mazdoor Mazdoor (Class-IV)
6552 of 2020 Mazdoor (Class- (Class-IV)
– 10 – 2025:HHC:3006
Satish Kumar IV) 01.01.2008 01.04.2005
vs. M.C.Shimla March, 1997
2. CWPOA No. Daily wage Mazdoor Mazdoor (Class-IV)
6555 of 2020 Mazdoor (Class- (Class-IV)
Tara Chand vs. IV) September, 01.01.2000 No change.
M.C.Shimla 1989
3. CWPOA No. Daily wage Mazdoor Mazdoor (Class-IV)
6608 of 2020 Mazdoor (Class-IV)
Dutt Bharti vs. (Class-IV) 01.04.2010 01.01.2008
M.C.Shimla September,
1999
4. CWPOA No. Daily wage Mazdoor Mazdoor (Class-IV)
6612 of 2020 Mazdoor (Class- (Class-IV)
Prem Lal IV) March, 1997 01.01.2008 01.04.2005
Sharma vs.
M.C.Shimla
Facts borne out from the chart in connected
cases are corroborated from the reply-affidavit. Even
the reply-affidavit indicates that the petitioners in
above connected cases were engaged as Mazdoor
(Class-IV), on daily wage basis and have in fact worked
as daily wage Mazdoor and not as Meter Reader/Clerk
and were regularized as Mazdoor (Class-IV) in
Respondent-Corporation. Thus, the Reply-affidavit
states that the petitioners have neither been
employed nor worked as Meter Reader/Clerk and
therefore, they cannot be regularized as Meter
Reader [Class-III] but have been rightly regularized
as Mazdoor [Class-IV] by Respondents.
With these submissions prayer has been
made for dismissing the connected cases also.
– 11 – 2025:HHC:3006
NO REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER:
6. Averments made in reply-affidavit filed by
the Respondent-Corporation and the contents of
the application have not been rebutted by the
petitioner by filing a rejoinder thereto. In absence
of any rebuttal the stand of respondent-Corporation
remains unrebutted.
7. Heard Mr. Jai Ram Sharma, Learned
Counsel for petitioner, Mr. Mukul Sood, Learned
Counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Tejasvi Dogra,
Advocate, for respondent No.2.
ANALYSIS:
8. Taking into account the entirety of the
facts and the material on record, this Court is of
the considered view that the claim of the petitioner
for regularization as Meter Reader/Clerk [Class-III]
from the date of completion of eight years of
continuous service w.e.f. 01.04.2009 instead of
regularizing him as Mazdoor on 9.11.2016 is not
tenable for the following reasons:-
8(i). Reply affidavit filed by Respondent No.1-
Corporation on 28.09.2021, as referred to above,
– 12 – 2025:HHC:3006
specifically states that petitioner was neither engaged
nor has ever worked or work of Meter Reader/Clerk
Class-III was extracted from the petitioner by the
respondent-Corporation. Moreover, the petitioner, has
not placed on record any material to assert his claim
in these proceedings that the petitioner was made
to work as Meter Reader/Clerk (Class-III) despite
being a Mazdoor (Class-IV) in Respondent-Corporation.
In absence of any material on record, this Court is
unable to accede to the claim of the petitioner in the
instant case.
8(ii). Even a perusal of documents placed on
record by respondent-Corporation i.e. copy of the
Original Application No. 1501 of 2015 i.e. Annexure
R-1/1 and orders passed by the State Administrative
Tribunal on 19.06.2015 [Annexure R-1/2] negates
the assertion of the petitioner that the petitioner
despite being a Mazdoor (Class-IV) was employed
to perform the work of Meter Reader/Clerk (Class-III)
by the Respondent-Corporation, for the reason, that
the petitioner filed an Original Application admitting
therein that the petitioner was engaged as a daily
– 13 – 2025:HHC:3006
waged Mazdoor and has worked as such for the
last 13 years i.e. till the filing of Original Application
in June, 2015 and therefore, he may be granted
regularization as Mazdoor. In this background, once
the petitioner has himself sworn an affidavit stating
him to be a Mazdoor since April, 2000 then, the
petitioner cannot be permitted to resile from the
affidavit in present proceedings by stating that he
has in fact worked as Meter Reader/Clerk (Class-III)
from April 2000 till June 2015 and thereafter. In
these circumstances, the documentary evidence, borne
out from the Original Application and the orders
therein including the COPC and the orders vide
Annexure R-1/1 to R–1/4 [supra] refrain this Court,
from acceding to the prayer of the petitioner in the
instant case. Moreover, once the petitioner has
accepted that he was Mazdoor [Class-IV] and was
regularized as Mazdoor [Class-IV] and has claimed
and was accorded retrospective regularization as
Mazdoor (Class-IV) in earlier proceedings [OA No. 1501
of 2015 and COPC No. 65 of 2015 vide Annexure
R-1/1 and R-1/4] then, the petitioner cannot claim
– 14 – 2025:HHC:3006
a different status altogether as Meter Reader/Clerk
(Class-III) in these proceedings in view of the principle
of acquiescence and approbation and reprobation.
In these circumstances, the claim of petitioner does
not stand the test of judicial scrutiny and is rejected.
CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER:
9. Contention of the Learned Counsel for
petitioner that even as per the communication dated
5.4.2014 [Annexure A-2] Respondent-Corporation had
extracted the work of Meter Reader/Clerk from the
petitioner.
This plea of the petitioner does not stand to
rational or logic in view of reply-affidavit which
specifically states that the petitioner was never asked
to work as Meter Reader/Clerk but he was merely
a party to Inspecting Team for verification of meters
and that too for a short duration of 24 working days
from 28.06.2014 to 26.07.2014, as mentioned in
communication dated 05.04.2014 [Annexure A-2] and
in these circumstances, the communication cannot
come to the rescue of the petitioner for establishing his
case and therefore, the prayer is not made out, in
– 15 – 2025:HHC:3006
instant case.
9(i). Even a perusal of office order dated
12.10.2018, placed on record, by the newly added
respondent No.2 Shimla Jal Prabandhan Nigam
Limited also negates the claim of the petitioner for
the reason that the State Government took a decision
on 23.04.2018 transferring the Water Supply and
Sewerage Services from Municipal Corporation to
Shimla Jal Prabandhan Nigam Limited alongwith its
employees on secondment basis w.e.f. 01.10.2018.
This Office Order dated 12.10.2018 contains a list of
187 employees of different categories [ministerial-non
ministerial, supporting staff and others] and in the
said list petitioner has been shown at Sr. No. 169 with
nomenclature as Mazdoor w.e.f. 1.4.2009. In these
circumstances, the plea of the petitioner that the
petitioner had worked as a Meter Reader/Clerk (Class-
III) stands negated, when, there is no challenge to the
order dated 12.10.2018 by the petitioner, in these
proceedings. Now, challenge to the orders dated
12.10.2018 certainly frowns against the claim of the
petitioner and therefore, the plea for regularization as
– 16 – 2025:HHC:3006
Class-III is not made out, in instant proceedings.
9(ii). Claim of the petitioner for regularizing as
Meter Reader/Clerk (Class-III) instead of regularizing
him as Mazdoor on the assertion that respondents
have engaged the petitioner as Mazdoor but have
extracted the work of Meter Reader/Clerk i.e. higher
post from the petitioner cannot be acceded to in
instant case, for the reason, that the assertion of
petitioner in writ petition has been specifically rebutted
by respondent-Corporation in the reply-affidavit. In
these circumstances, once the assertion of the
petitioner has been negated in Reply-Affidavit giving
rise to disputed questions of facts, therefore, this
Court refrains from entertaining and adjudicating the
plea of petitioner which originates from disputed
questions of facts in the instant case, when, the
disputed questions of facts are required to be proved
by leading evidence in appropriate proceedings and not
by this Court in present proceedings.
9(iii). While dealing with a similar facts situation,
this Court has negated the claim in CWPOA No. 6617
of 2020 titled as Sunder Lal versus Municipal
– 17 – 2025:HHC:3006
Corporation, decided on 6.11.2024 wherein a Class-IV
employee, who was seeking regularization as Mason
(Class-III) on the basis of the averments that the work
of Mason was extracted from him by respondent,
keeping in view the factual extracts and the disputed
questions of facts in following terms:-
8. After taking into account the entirety of
the facts and circumstances as borne out
from the pleadings herein, this Court is of
the considered view, that the claim of the
petitioner for regularization as Mason
[Class-III category-post], instead of
regularizing him as a Mazdoor [Class-IV
category post], is not tenable, for the
following reasons :-
(i) Petitioner has made a bald statement in
the petition that though he was initially
engaged as Mazdoor [Class-IV category-
post], but had actually worked as Mason
[Class-III category-post] and therefore, the
petitioner ought to have been
considered and granted regularization
as Mason [Class-III category-post], is
without force, when, the petitioner has
not placed on record any material to
prove that the petitioner, had in fact,
worked as a Mason from September
1995 onwards. In absence of any material
having been placed on record, the plea of
the petitioner appears to be untrustworthy
and not worthy of credence and such a
claim in absence of material on record,
cannot be examined in these proceedings.
(ii) Petitioner has contended that though
he was engaged as a Mazdoor [Class-IV,
category-post] in September 1995, but
had worked as a Mason [Class-III,
– 18 – 2025:HHC:3006
category-post] but on the other hand, the
Respondent has specifically denied that
the petitioner had ever worked as Mason
and/or the work of Mason was extracted
from the petitioner. Thus once the claim
and counter stand of the parties
disputed question of fact, the disputed
facts cannot be examined in these
proceedings are involved, and
therefore, the instant petition fails and
is accordingly ordered.
(iii) Though the petitioner was initially
regularized as Mazdoor [Class-IV category-
post] on 20.04.2007, but in terms of the
judgment passed by this Court in Mathu
Ram‘s case and other judgments, the
petitioner, was granted retrospective
regularized as Mazdoor [Class-IV,
category-post] from the date of completion
of 8 years of continuous service w.e.f.
01.01.2004 [Annexure A-1] and this
benefit of retrospective regularization as
Mazdoor [Class-IV, category-post] w.e.f.
01.01.2004 was accepted; then, based on
the principle of estoppel and
acquiescence, the petitioner has
neither any locus standi nor any right
to claim regularization on the higher
post of Mason [Class-III, category-post]
in these proceedings; and in these
circumstances, the present petition is
without merit and the same is disallowed.
9. In view of above discussion and for the
reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant
petition is devoid of any merit and the
same is accordingly dismissed.”
CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS IN LEAD CASE
[CWPOA No. 6609 of 2020]:
10. In view of above discussion and for the
reasons recorded hereinabove, Lead Case [CWPOA No.
– 19 – 2025:HHC:3006
6609 of 2020] is dismissed, in the following terms:
(i). Claim of petitioner [a Mazdoor, Class-
IV] for regularization as Meter
Reader/Clerk [Class-III], for having
worked as Meter Reader/Clerk
[Class-III] in Respondent-Municipal
Corporation, Shimla, [in absence of any
material on record and stand in reply] is
without merit;
(ii). In view of disputed facts, petitioners
may seek assertion of claim, in case,
any such right and remedy exists in
accordance with law, if so desires;
(iii). Parties shall bear respective costs.
CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS IN CONNECTED
CASES [CWPOA No. 6552, 6555, 6608 and 6612
of 2020]:
11. In view of the above discussion and taking
into account the fact that the claim and contentions of
petitioners in connected cases are pari-materia to the
Lead Case and even the Respondent-Corporation have
taken a similar stand in Reply-affidavit(s), therefore,
the directions passed in Lead Case CWPOA No. 6609 of
2021 shall mutatis mutandis apply to the connected
cases and claim of petitioners [Mazdoor Class-IV] for
– 20 – 2025:HHC:3006
regularization as Meter Reader/Clerk [Class-III], in
facts of instant cases, is without merit and therefore,
all connected cases are also dismissed.
12. Before parting with the case, this Court
observes that since disputed questions of fact have
been raised regarding the claim of petitioners for
regularization as Meter Reader/Clerk [Class-III] despite
having been engaged and regularized as Mazdoor
[Class-IV] [which plea has been denied by Respondent-
Corporation in reply-affidavit(s)], therefore, as prayed
for by Learned Counsel for petitioners and in order to
secure the ends of justice, this Court grants liberty, to
the petitioner(s) to assert their respective claim(s), by
availing appropriate remedy before an appropriate
forum, in case any such rights as well as remedy exits,
in accordance with law, if so desired.
In aforesaid terms, all the writ petitions are
dismissed and all pending applications, shall also
stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
7th January, 2025
[tm]
[ad_1]
Source link