Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1057 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Krishna Kumari

2010-08-23

KULDIP SINGH, KURIAN JOSEPH

body2010
JUSTICE Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral)‘ The State has come in appeal against the judgment dated 19.6.2009 of the learned Single Judge in CWP (T) No. 8065 of 2008. The short facts in the case of the writ petitioners, who are respondents herein are that they had originally been regularized on completion of 8 years of service. Thereafter, the orders of regularization were sought to be unilaterally withdrawn on the ground that the regularization would be granted only after nine years of service. The matter was taken up before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had admitted the matter and granted interim stay of operation of withdrawal of the regularization. Thereafter, the Tribunal was abolished and the matter was transferred to this Court, hence the writ petition. 2. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition mainly on the following grounds: (i) The withdrawal was without notice to the petitioners (ii) As on the date of regularization of the petitioners, they had satisfied the required conditions in terms of the then existing policy for regularization. 3. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General appearing for the State contends that the regularization orders have been passed erroneously and hence the same were sought to be withdrawn and the grounds on which such withdrawal was passed had already been communicated to the petitioners and in that view of the matter, there was no need for personal hearing. It is also submitted that as on the date of regularization, the policy ruling the field required nine years of service. 4. As far as the withdrawal is concerned, in case the original order had been passed on mistaken set of facts and in case the State only wanted to set right a mistake that had crept in the orders already passed and if the same were brought to the notice of the incumbent concerned, such orders would be vitiated on the ground of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. Certainly, it is open to the petitioners to point out any mistake in the said process taken by the State for amending their earlier orders. Certainly, it is open to the petitioners to point out any mistake in the said process taken by the State for amending their earlier orders. However, as far as the other ground regarding claim for regularization on completion of 8 years is concerned, in case the writ petitioners had completed 8 years of service with 240 days in each year and in case as on the date of completion of such 8 years, there existed vacancies so as to regularize the petitioners and in case the policy prevailing as on date of such completion of 8 years of service required only 8 years, the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of regularization on the ground that at the time of passing the orders of regularization, the policy required 9 years of daily waged service. In other words, it all depends on the policy prevailing as on the date of accrual of the right of the incumbent concerned for being considered for regularization. If as a matter of fact, on the date he completed 8 years with 240 days in each year and in case as on the date of completion of 8 years, the policy required only 8 years of service for regularization, the incumbent concerned has a right to be regularized in terms of the policy prevailing as on the date of completion of 8 years, subject to availability of vacancy. 5. Therefore, this appeal is disposed of making it clear that in case the appellants have any dispute on the position explained above, it will be open to them to take appropriate action in accordance with law after putting the petitioners with notice and granting them an opportunity of hearing. 6. Needless also to say that in case there was no work charged/ regular vacancy available, the petitioners would be entitled to conferment of the work charged status on completion of 10 years of daily waged service, in terms of the policy dated 8.7.1999. We may also clarify that in case any of the juniors to the writ petitioners have been regularized in service on completion of 8 years of service, the petitioners shall be granted the similar benefits.