Disposed

Ranjeet Singh v. State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC17 May 2024CMP/13095/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contract employee deployed under the Marketing Intervention Scheme challenged his termination based on a show cause notice alleging absence from a store where he was not deputed. The court quashed the show cause notice and consequential termination and directed the respondents to consider his regularization within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Show cause notice dated 03.12.2021 and consequential termination quashed; respondents directed to consider petitioner for regularization within six weeks.

Ranjeet Singh Vs State of Hp and Another — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

CWP No.732 of 2022

¶3

Decided on: 17^th May, 2024 Ranjeet Singh .......Petitioner Versus H.P. State Co-operative Marketing and Consumer Federation and another. ...Respondents

¶4

H.P. State Co-operative Marketing and Consumer Federation and another.

¶5

Coram

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the petitioner: Mr. Kashmir Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Karan Singh Parmar and Mr. Vijay Singh Thakur, Advocates.

¶8

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

¶9

The instant petition has been filed for the grant of

¶10

following reliefs:-

¶11

“a. That impugned action proposed in the Board of Directors meeting (BOD) on held 21.01.2022 regarding termination of services of petitioner under agenda Item No.11 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶12

b. That directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner after completion of two years service in July, 2021 alongwith other similarly situated persons as per the policy of State Government.

¶13

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶14

¶15

c. That respondents may kindly be directed to post the petitioner near to his hometown after taking into consideration the physical impairment of the petitioner.

¶16

d. That action of respondent No.2 directing petitioner to handover the charge to another person of fertilizer store Nirmand may kindly be quashed and set aside.”

¶17

Perusal of office order dated 24^th July, 2021 would go to indicate that the petitioner had temporarily been deployed under the Marketing Intervention Scheme (MIS) at block Rampur and was required to attend his duties on the following collection centres:-

¶18

i) Palzara ii) Jarasi iii) Kamalahu iv) Jaguni v) Jogni and; vi) Deothi.

¶19

However, surprisingly, a show cause notice came to

¶20

be issued against the petitioner vide order dated 03.12.2021 (Annexure P-10). The relevant portion whereof reads as under:-

¶21

“AND WHEREAS again as informed by Sh. Faquir Chand, Area In-charge Rampur vide his letter No. HIMFED/AM/RMP/2020-21-218 dated 5 10.2021 that you were found absent from duty during his visit to the Fertilizer Store Nirmand on 05/10/2021 to attend the complaint filed by Sh Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Nand Lal Village Panta PO Tunan Tehsil Nirmang District Kullu(H.P) as per evidence adduced by nim alongwith

¶22

¶23

above information. Therefore it proves that you are time and again disobeying the orders of your superiors.

¶24

Therefore, in view of above you are hereby served this Notice as to why your contract services should not be terminated as per terms and conditions of Contract Appointment and as per Contract Policy of State Government. You are further asked to submit your reply to this Notice within a period of seven days from the issue of this letter, failing which ex-parte action will be taken against you.”

¶25

It is not understood as to how the petitioner could have been found at Fertilizer Store, Nirmand when he has specifically been deputed in block Rampur under the MIS, that too, for a period w.e.f. 20.07.2021 up to 31.10.2021. Obviously, in such circumstances, the notice issued to the petitioner was absolutely manipulated if not illegal otherwise.

¶26

What is still worse that the respondents did not follow the requisite Rules and had taken a harsh decision to terminate the services of the petitioner vide Board of Directors meeting held on 21.01.2022.

¶27

Obviously, in such circumstances, all consequential action pursuant to the issuance of show cause notice dated 03.12.2021 which forms the edifice and foundation for termination of the petitioner cannot withstand the judicial scrutiny and the same is accordingly quashed and set aside.

¶28

¶29

As a result thereof, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services as was done in the cases of his counterparts, in case there is no legal or other impediment in doing so. This entire exercise be completed within a period of six weeks from today.

¶30

The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid

¶31

terms, so also the pending applications, if any.

¶32

For compliance, list on 5^th July, 2024.

¶33

May 17, 2024

¶34

(naveen)

Ranjeet Singh v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Singh v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Vardhman Ispat Udyog Vs Kamlesh Saklani

State Vs Sohan Lal

Jiwan Lal Vs Achhru Ram and Another

Malkiat Singh Vs Sandeep Kumar and Others

Rajesh Kumar Jhanji Vs State of Hp and Others

Dile Ram Vs Purva Priya