Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 200 (HP)

Chet Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2015-03-18

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. The writ petitioner has entered in the second round of litigation by the medium of this writ petition due to the inaction of the respondents. 2. The writ petitioner had filed CWP No. 2488 of 2010before this Court seeking regularization of his services, which was disposed of vide order, dated 28.05.2010, by a Division Bench of this Court with a direction to the respondents to examine the case of the writ petitioner. The respondents have examined his case, but have not redressed his grievances, constraining him to file the present writ petition. 3. Respondent No. 2 has filed reply. It is apt to reproduce paras 4 and 5 of the said reply herein: "4. That the State Government has evolved the policies of regularization and same is made ipso facto applicable to the Respondent Board/APMCs. According to the policy, DPLs, who have completed 8 years of continuous service as such with 240 days in a calendar year, become eligible to be considered for regularization. But regularization is made in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of respective categories, seniority, available sanctioned/vacant posts in-as much as after observing all codal formalities. Copy enclosed hereto as Annexure R-2. 5. That the petitioner being Matriculate, fulfills the requisite criteria of essential education qualification over and above i.e. 8th standard as per the R & P Rules for the post of Peon-cum-Chowkidar, Class-IV. Besides, this, he has also completed requisite years of daily waged services as on 31.3.2010. But regularization of his daily waged services is to be considered only against the available sanctioned and vacant post of Class-IV stated above. But no post of peon Cum Chowkidar, class-IV, is available at present to accommodate the petitioner at this juncture. Notwithstanding the fact though the petitioner is appeared at Sr. No. 56 in the seniority list up to 31.3.2009 vides Ann. P- 1. But after fresh review of combined seniority of DPLs (class-III & IV) up to 31.3.2010, the petitioner appeared at Sr. No. 41. Hence 40 persons are fairly senior to the petitioner and have not been regularized for want of vacant & sanctioned posts and relaxation of education qualification in some cases. The relevant abstract of seniority is appended hereto as Annexure-R-3 (Colly)." 4. In the given circumstances, the stand taken by the respondents is wrong, thus, are in breach. No. 41. Hence 40 persons are fairly senior to the petitioner and have not been regularized for want of vacant & sanctioned posts and relaxation of education qualification in some cases. The relevant abstract of seniority is appended hereto as Annexure-R-3 (Colly)." 4. In the given circumstances, the stand taken by the respondents is wrong, thus, are in breach. I deem it proper to dispose of this writ petition with a command to the respondents to redress the grievance of the writ petitioner in light of the Rules occupying the field read with paras 4 and 5 of the reply filed by respondent No. 2 within six weeks. 5. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly, along-with all pending applications, if any.