Shimla: Rs 1L cost imposed for forcing Class IV employee to litigate
Shimla, March 1
The Himachal High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the Forest Department for forcing a Class IV employee to litigate for almost 14 years for the adjudication of his legitimate rights.
While imposing the costs, Justice Bipin Chander Negi clarified in his order that costs would be personally paid by the then Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Karsog, who passed the order of rejection on September 4, 2020. The court directed the authorities to pay the cost to the petitioner Narsingh Dutt on or before April 30, 2024.
Work-charged status denied
The state authority adopted a complete discriminatory approach, as has been demonstrated hereinabove. While other similarly individuals were accorded work-charged status, but in the case of the petitioner the same was denied. —Justice Bipin Chander Negi
The court directed the department to ensure grant of work charge status/regularization to the petitioner on or before April, 30, 2024 by making him work charge or regular from January 1, 2002, along with all consequential benefits, including payment of arrears and interest thereon.
The court passed this order on a petition filed by a Class IV employee who alleged that the department was not granting him the work-charge status, whereas, it had given the benefit to other similar employees.
While allowing the plea of the petitioner, the court observed that “a complete discriminatory approach had been adopted by the state authority as has been demonstrated hereinabove, whereby other similarly individuals were accorded work-charged status, but in the case of the petitioner the same was denied by stating that the forest department is not a work charged establishment”.
It observed, “It is clearly evident that the petitioner, who is a Class-IV employee, has been denied his legitimate right since 2010. On each occasion, the department has objected to the genuine claim of the petitioner by taking frivolous pleas.”
It observed that “just because officers of the state do not have to pay for litigation from their pocket does not mean that they can harass individuals like the petitioner by forcing them into uncalled for litigation.
