Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 165 (HP)

Pinki Devi v. State of H. P.

2021-03-22

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2021
JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. Through the extant writ petition, the writ petitioner claims, the, making of a mandamus, upon, the respondents, to mete her, the, benefits of regularisation, as a forest worker, w.e.f. 31.03.1998 or w.e.f. 31.03.1999. The writ petitioner, also claims condonation of fictional breaks, as, made, during her service, by the respondents, rather for depriving her to complete 240 days of continuous service in each 8 calender years preceding 31.03.1998 or 31.03.1999. 2. The respondents denied the afore claim, and, they proceeded, to contend in their reply on affidavit, that Annexure R-1, annexure whereof is the mandays chart, with respect to the work, as, a daily wager rendered by the petitioner, rather not reflecting, that in each of the respective 8 apposite calender years preceding, 31.03.1998 and 31.03.1999, the writ petitioner rendering 240 days of continuous service, in each, of the apposite 8 calender year(s). (i) Since, in the relevant policy, as, formulated by the respondents, vis-a-vis, the conferring, of, the afore benefit of regularisation in service, upon, the hitherto daily waged workers, it is imperative, for the latter to complete 240 days, of, continuous service in each of the eight calender years, (ii)whereas, with Annexure R-1 not suggestive, vis-a-vis, the afore criteria becoming satisfied by the writ petitioner, (iii) consequently, the espoused mandamus, inasmuch, as, the respondents being directed to confer the afore benefit of regularisation in service, upon, the petitioner w.e.f. 31.03.1998 or w.e.f. 31.03.1999, is amenable for its being declined. 3. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended, that since the information received, from, the Public Information Officer, under the Right to Information Act, information whereof is enclosed as Annexure A-2, with the extant writ petition, does repudiate, the mandays chart, as, appended with the reply furnished to the extant writ petition, by the respondents, hence, credence is to be meted to Annexure A- 2, than to Annexure R-1. However, the afore argument, cannot be accepted by this Court, as, the mandays chart enclosed, in Annexure A-2, is merely a photo copy of the original, and, excepting its last page becoming signatured, all other pages do not carry signatures, of the Officer hence maintaining the musteroll(s) of the writ petitioner. Contrarily, Annexure R-1, is, signatured on all its pages, by the Divisional Forest Officer, Parvati Forest Division, Shamshi, and, hence the displays made therein carry immense credence, and, probative sanctity. 4. Contrarily, Annexure R-1, is, signatured on all its pages, by the Divisional Forest Officer, Parvati Forest Division, Shamshi, and, hence the displays made therein carry immense credence, and, probative sanctity. 4. Even though, the learned counsel appearing, for, the writ petitioner, contends that the latter was intentionally deprived, from completing 240 days of continuous service, in each of 8 apposite calender years, preceding the years, whereon, she claims regularization, hence, the afore fictional breaks, be construed to be malafidely made, or/and, fictionally administered, and, also hence theirs being condoned. However, for the afore submission to become accepted by this Court, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, was under an obligation to place on record, an order of the respondents concerned, hence, making echoings that the afore breaks, were in consonance therewith hence administered, during the course of hers rendering daily wage service. Yet, the afore order or notification is not on record. Consequently, the afore breaks, at this stage, cannot be construed to be malafidely made or administered, merely for depriving the petitioner to complete 240 days, of, continuous service in each, of, the 8 apposite calender years. Moreover, the afore is a disputed question of fact, and, if the afore breaks, have, occurred with malafides, only for depriving the petitioner to claim regularization in service, thereupon, the afore controversy cannot be rested, through, a motion being cast under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the afore controversy can be rested, upon, the workman concerned raising an industrial dispute, before the Appropriate Government, and, the latter proceeding, to, make a reference to the Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal. 5. With the afore observations, the extant writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty reserved to the petitioner to, with respect to, any purported malafides, of, the respondents concerned, in administering any purported fictional breaks, in service, to the petitioner, hence, for defeating her to claim for regularization in service, rather avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law. No order as to costs. All pending applications also stand disposed of.