Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 509 (HP)

Naresh Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-08-21

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2020
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "i) That in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, in this writ petition, the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 28.12.2019 may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) That the respondent department may kindly be directed to regularize the service of the petitioner on the completion of 10 years i.e. w.e.f. 1.1.2002 as beldar since he had not exercise any option to be regularaized in the higher post". 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that petitioner was initially engaged as a Beldar in the year 1991 on daily wage basis. Thereafter, petitioner was engaged as a Work Inspector w.e.f. March, 1996. His services were regularised as such in the year 2006. The contention of the petitioner is that regularisation of his services against the post of Work Inspector was done by the Department without seeking any option from him and a representation which stood filed by him has been arbitrarily rejected by the Department, vide Annexure P-2, dated 28.12.2019. It is in this background that this petition has been filed, praying for the reliefs already enumerated hereinabove. 3. Reply to the petition has been filed by respondents/State, wherein they have taken the stand that services of the petitioner were rightly regularized against the higher post in view of completion of requisite number of years of service in the year 2006. It is further the stand of the respondents/State that the representation of the petitioner also stood rightly rejected by the Department as he had no right of regularisation against the post of Beldar. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as well as other documents appended with the petition. 5. It is not in dispute that services of the petitioner stood regularised as a Work Inspector in the year 2006. Regularisation of his service was accepted by the petitioner without any objection. Meaning thereby, he acquiescend to the act of the Department of regularising his services as a Work Inspector. 5. It is not in dispute that services of the petitioner stood regularised as a Work Inspector in the year 2006. Regularisation of his service was accepted by the petitioner without any objection. Meaning thereby, he acquiescend to the act of the Department of regularising his services as a Work Inspector. It is only in the year 2019 i.e. in December, 2019, he made a representation to the Department concerned to the effect that option ought to have been taken from him at the time of regularisation of his service, whether he wanted to regularise against the post of Beldar or against the post of Work Inspector. This representation of the petitioner was rejected by the authorities vide Annexure P-2, dated 28.12.2019, which now as per the petitioner gives him a cause of action to file and maintain this writ petition. 6. In my considered view, this petition is highly belated and is badly hit by the principles of delay and latches. The cause of action to assail the order of his regularisation accrued to the petitioner when his services were ordered to be regularised. It is not in dispute that in the year 2006, Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal was functionel. As per provisions of the Administration Tribunals Act, the limitation to challenge an order is one year. The order of his regularisation was never assailed by the petitioner within the said statutory period of limitation or within some reasonable time thereafter. In other words, the order of regularisation of the petitioner thus attained finality. It is after thirteen years that a representation was filed by the petitioner, wherein he raised his grievance purportedly with regard to his wrong regularization. Even the copy of the representation has not been appended with the petition by the petitioner. Be that as it may, in my considered view, filing of a belated representation would not give a fresh cause of action to the petitioner even in case any action was taken upon it by the Department concerned for the simple reason that the representation which was so made by the petitioner was not a statutory representation. Be that as it may, in my considered view, filing of a belated representation would not give a fresh cause of action to the petitioner even in case any action was taken upon it by the Department concerned for the simple reason that the representation which was so made by the petitioner was not a statutory representation. At the cost of repetition, I reiterate that the cause of action to assail the order of representation accrued upon the petitioner on the date when his services were regularized and if he was really aggrieved by the said order, then he should have had assailed the same within the period of limitation or within some reasonable time thereafter. In addition, it is pertinent to mention that it is not the case of the petitioner that his services were regularised against the lower post. Admittedly, his services were regularised against the higher post. Therefore, at this stage, belatedly the petitioner cannot be permitted to rake up the issue of his regularisation which took place in the year 2006 on the strength of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.778 of 2006, titled as Gauri Dutt Versus State of H.P., decided on 29.12.2007. If the petitioner was really aggrieved by the factum of his regularisation against the post of Work Inspector, then he should have had assailed the same by filing appropriate writ petition in the Court as was done by Gauri Dutt and other similarly situated persons immediately after their regularisation. 7. In view of the observations made hereinabove, as this Court does not finds any merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.