Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Divisional Manager, Tourism & Anr v. Chander Hass & Anr - RSA-666-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 997 (21 February 2006)


RSA No.666 of 2006

Date of Decision: 17.02.2006

Parties Name

Divisional Manager, Tourism and another



Chander Hass and another


Present: Shri Manohar Lall, Advocate for the appellant s JUDGMENT

Appellant are mighty officers of the State and the respondents are their unfortunate poor employees, whose rights are being denied to them by the appellants, simply on the basis of technicalities.

In this case, appellants have acted worse then a private employer. It is an admitted fact that the respondents were taken in service in the year 1988, as daily wagers against posts of Mali. Subsequently, in the year 1989, they were put to perform duties of tractor drivers and for a number of years, they continued to be paid wages, for the post of Mali. Thereafter, on a recommendation made by the Head Office, the appellants started paying them wages of tractor driver on daily wages RSA No.666 of 2006 2

basis, as per rates recommended by the Deputy Commissioner. Though they continued to work for about a decade, as tractor drivers, their services, in a very arbitrary manner, were regularized against the post of Mali in the year

1999. When, despite representations, their grievance was not redressed, respondents filed civil suit in the month of April, 2001, claiming regularization against the posts of tractor driver. Their claim was rejected simply by saying that no post of tractor driver was available. Suit was dismissed. However, respondents succeeded in appeal.

Appellate Court below, by taking note of communication, inter- se, the officers of the Corporation, wherein, it was recommended that they be posted as tractor drivers, came to a conclusion that the respondents were eligible for regularization against the posts of tractor drivers, as they were holding valid driving licences and were working as tractor drivers for about a decade. To say so, reference was made to documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. It is apparent from the records that vide letter Ex.P2 dated 6.8.1999, a responsible officer of the appellants, strongly recommended that two posts of tractor drivers be sanctioned so that the respondents can be regularized against those posts. Despite a fact that two tractors are available with the appellants since 1999 and need to employ tractor drivers also existed, both the respondents were performing duties as such, the higher authorities rejected that recommendation in a very arbitrary manner. Appellate Court below has also noticed that vide letter Ex.P3 dated 10.3.2000, Secretary of the Club, made a request to the General Manager (Administration) Haryana Tourism Corporation that keeping in view efficiency of the respondents, special pay scale, of a tractor driver, be granted to them. Even prior to their regularization against the post of Mali, keeping in view their expertise, as tractor drivers, the respondents were RSA No.666 of 2006 3

being paid wages of tractor drivers though on the rates fixed by the Deputy Commissioner. It has not been proved before the Court below, as to what were the circumstances, due to which, the posts were not created. Even before this Court, nothing has been shown that what was the hitch in not creating the posts of drivers especially, when tractors were available and there existed need to use those tractors. Simply by relying upon technicalities, the State authorities cannot be allowed to suppress the individuals and to deny their lawful rights. During arguments, it has virtually been admitted that even now, the respondents are working as Drivers though they are being paid wages of the mali (gardner). Only contention raised before this Court is that the appellate Court below has gone wrong in ordering creation of posts, to adjust the respondents. This argument is devoid of any force in view of facts of the present case.

Reliance of the counsel for the appellant upon ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. & Ors. v. U.P.Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Shramik Sangh & anr., 1996(1) SLR 303, is of no help, as in that case, the individuals, to whom, relief was given, were working against the same very posts and it was not their case that they were being asked to perform duties on some higher post. However, in the present case, for the last more than one and a half decade, respondents are being paid wages of a Gardner whereas they are admittedly, working against the posts of tractor drivers. Under these circumstances, no case is made out for interference in pure findings of fact arrived at by the appellate Court below as counsel has failed to raise any substantial question of law at the time of arguments.


February 17, 2006 ( Jasbir Singh )

gk Judge

RSA No.666 of 2006 4


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.