27 years & 50 judges later, petitioner gets justice

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, May 26

It is justice at last for Ramesh Chand Sharma. More than 27 years after his services as a senior training and development officer were terminated, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has rapped the Indian Sugar and General Engineering Corporation for harassing him while imposing Rs 2 lakh costs on it.

The direction came as the Bench of Acting Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji dismissed the corporation’s appeal against the “well-reasoned order of a Single Judge” directing the petitioner to be deemed to be reinstated in service from the date of his termination.

Frivolous litigation

Due to the capricious act and conduct on the part of the appellants in harassing a poor employee for no fault of his own 1996 onwards and embroiling him in frivolous/unnecessary litigation, and wasting precious judicial time, this court dismisses the appeal with costs assessed at Rs 2 lakh to be paid to the respondent-employee within two months. —HC Bench

“Due to the capricious act and conduct on the part of the appellants in harassing a poor employee for no fault of his own 1996 onwards and embroiling him in frivolous/unnecessary litigation, and wasting precious judicial time, this court dismisses the appeal with costs assessed at Rs 2 lakh to be paid to the respondent-employee within two months,” the Bench asserted.

Sharma’s plea was admitted on September 30, 1998, with a direction “to be heard in the week commencing January 18, 1999”. The case moved from one court to another and passed though the hands of almost 50 judges before being eventually listed before the Single Bench of Justice Jaishree Thakur.

Taking up the matter, Justice Thakur observed that the petitioner joined the corporation in 1981 as a labour welfare officer (LWO) before being given the additional charge of safety officer vide a letter dated June 13, 1995. He was also made training and safety officer vide an office order dated June 19, 1995. The post was subsequently re-designated as senior training and development officer and another person was transferred as LWO vide an office order dated October 19, 1995. Subsequently, he was handed over a termination letter.

His appeal was rejected on the ground that he accepted the training officer’s post in violation of the Punjab Welfare Officers Recruitment and Conditions Service Rules 1953, which did not permit a welfare officer to perform any other duty or hold any other post without the government’s prior permission.

The Bench asserted that the appellants not only violated the statutory rules while terminating his service, but also the Punjab Welfare Officer Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1952, by imposing additional duties on the LWO.