Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 828 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Bhaskar Ram

2017-07-24

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2017
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J (Oral). Aggrieved by the order dated 24.9.2015 (Annexure P-3) passed by a Division Bench of H.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1806/2015 whereby the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the original applicant) has been ordered to be regularized as Beldar w.e.f. 1.1.2000 and to allow him to continue in service up to the age of 60 years, the respondents in the original application have preferred this writ petition with a prayer to quash and set aside the same on the grounds inter alia that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case (1994 Supp.(2) SCC 316), the original applicant was required to be brought on work charge establishment of the respondent-department and as regards his regularization, the same in terms of the judgment ibid should have been on the basis of seniority and subject to availability of post(s). The original applicant, as such, was rightly regularized vide office order No. 12 dated 3.5.2007 w.e.f. 11.4.2007 on availability of post created by the Government pursuant to policy circulated vide letter No. PER (AP)-C-B(2)- 1/2006 Vol. II, Dated 9.6.2006. The original applicant was neither entitled for regularization w.e.f. 1.1.2000 nor to continue in service up to the age of 60 years. 2. The original applicant on the other hand claims that he having acquired 8 years of continuous service on daily wage basis on 1.1.2000 was entitled for regularization from the said date under the policy framed by the State Government and also the law laid down by this Court. 3. Admittedly, the original applicant was inducted on daily wage basis in Karsog Division of the Forest Department in the year 1991. He, however, completed 8 years of service with 240 days in each calendar year from 1.1.1992 onwards. As per the policy dated 26.9.2005 framed by the State Government read with High Court orders dated 3.4.2000 and 6.5.2000, issued by the Government for regularization of daily waged Beldars, the original applicant who had already completed 8 years of service on daily wage basis as on 1.1.2000, was entitled to be regularized as Beldar accordingly. As per the policy dated 26.9.2005 framed by the State Government read with High Court orders dated 3.4.2000 and 6.5.2000, issued by the Government for regularization of daily waged Beldars, the original applicant who had already completed 8 years of service on daily wage basis as on 1.1.2000, was entitled to be regularized as Beldar accordingly. The stand of the respondent-State that his services could have been regularized only on the availability of post(s), however, is not tenable as a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Gian Singh vs. State of H.P & ors, CWP No. 7140 of 2012 decided on 24.9.2014 upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 194 of 2015 vide judgment dated 3.12.2015, has taken similar view of the matter and not only directed the respondent-State to regularize the services of the original applicant, a similarly situated person with effect from 1.1.2000, but also to allow him to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years. Similar is the ratio of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1 of 2008 titled Chunni Lal vs. State of H.P. decided on 24.6.2015. 4. In this view of the matter, learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality or irregularity while allowing the original application since the entitlement of the original applicant for regularization w.e.f. 1.1.2000 allow him to continue in job up to the age of 60 years for the reason that as per FR 56, a Class-IV employee in regular service of the State Government as on 10.5.2001 is also entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 years. The original applicant in the present case was retired from service on 31.7.2014 on attaining the age of 58 years. He however, was retired from service on 31.3.2015, therefore, for the period from 31.7.2014 to 31.3.2015, he has to be treated on duty for all intents and purposes, of course notionally and as such, entitled to all monetary benefits. Therefore, learned Tribunal has appreciated this aspect of the matter also in its right perspective. The impugned order, as such, calls for no interference. 5. In view of what has been said hereinabove, this Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.