Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 180 (HP)

State Of Himachal Pradesh v. Gopal Singh Sisodia

2013-03-13

R.B.MISRA, SURINDER SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT : Surinder Singh, J.—Considered. C.M.P. (M) No. 1637 of 2012. There is delay of 149 days in filing the present appeal. The contention raised in the application, which is duly supported by the affidavit, prima-facie constitutes sufficient cause to condone the delay, as such application is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Application stands disposed of. L.P.A. No. 454 of 2012. 2. Heard. 3. The State feels aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge passed in CWP (T) No. 2/2011 decided on 19.3.2012, whereby the petition filed by the respondent was allowed whereby he was deemed to have been appointed on regular basis from the initial date of his appointment, i.e. 6.8.1992 as Law Officer in the office of the Advocate General with all consequential benefits, as per concluding para of the impugned judgment. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the State preferred the instant appeal, on the ground that the respondent was not fulfilling condition No. 2 of the Regularization Policy being not within the age limit as per R & P Rules at the time of his ad hoc appointment and further that the said post was Class-II Gazetted and no consultation was made with the H.P. Public Service Commission while regularizing the services of the respondent. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at the admission stage and have carefully gone through the record. 6. It is pertinent to note that the respondent possessed the minimum educational qualification and experience at the time of his initial appointment on ad hoc basis. Apprehending his termination, he filed Q.A. No. 1545 of 1993 in the erstwhile Tribunal. Finding the petition premature for want of such orders, the status-quo was ordered to be maintained vide its order dated 26-8-1993, but finally on 24-5-2000, the Original Application was dismissed by the erstwhile Tribunal. Though, the relief of regularization was declined to him with a rider that the services of the respondent would not be terminated till the regular candidate is appointed, but despite that order, the respondent kept on working as Law Officer continuously on ad hoc basis without any interruption. Thereafter, the appellant-State issued a Notification dated 30.11.1996 regularizing the services of the ad hoc appointees who had worked continuously for five years and were possessing minimum educational qualification prescribed under the R & P Rules at the time of such ad hoc appointment. Thereafter, the appellant-State issued a Notification dated 30.11.1996 regularizing the services of the ad hoc appointees who had worked continuously for five years and were possessing minimum educational qualification prescribed under the R & P Rules at the time of such ad hoc appointment. These instructions have also been quoted by the learned single Judge in para-5 of his judgment. The respondent in the instant case was having the minimum educational qualification and experience provided under the relevant Rules, which were in vogue. Since he had completed five years of ad hoc service, as stated above, thus his case was fully covered under the instructions issued by the Government. Thus, in our considered opinion and more specifically when he had worked and discharged his duties as per the instructions of the appellant, no fault can be found in his appointment at this belated stage and the learned single Judge has rightly appreciated and held that the respondent would be deemed to have been regularized on completion of five years of his ad hoc service being covered under the instructions referred above. Further, the ground, which is now taken with respect to the age of the respondent in this appeal was never taken before the learned single Judge, therefore, it cannot be looked into; as such the appeal is dismissed in limine, so also the pending application(s), if any.