Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 234 (HP)

Parkash Chand v. State of H. P

2021-04-09

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2021
JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. Through the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner challenges the making of an order borne in Annexure A-2. The afore order was made in pursuance to a direction made by this Court, in an earlier Civil Writ Petition bearing No. 8893 of 2014 titled as Parkash Chand versus State of H.P & others, decided on 11.12.2014, becoming filed by the writ petitioner. The afore writ petition became disposed of with the hereinafter extracted directions:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in the present petition is covered by the judgment, dated 27.8.2010, passed by this Court in CWP No.2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others, alongwith connected matters and the judgment dated 7.5.2013, passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.21939- 22009/2011, titled as State of H.P. and others vs. Som Nath and others. 2. Therefore, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today, strictly in view of the principles laid down in the judgments cited hereinabove. 3. Pending CMPs, if any, also stand disposed of.” 2. Through impugned Annexure A-2, the respondent concerned rejected the claim of the writ petitioner for his being regularized in service w.e.f the year claimed in the Civil Writ Petition supra. 3. The making of Annexure A-2, by the respondent concerned, has been impugned by the writ petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the impugned Annexure suffers from an illegality, in as much as, it is made beyond the ambit of, the, policy of regularization, as has been formulated by the respondents. 3. The making of Annexure A-2, by the respondent concerned, has been impugned by the writ petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the impugned Annexure suffers from an illegality, in as much as, it is made beyond the ambit of, the, policy of regularization, as has been formulated by the respondents. However, though, within the ambit of the afore policy, the writ petitioner, did complete, the requisite term of eligiblising service for his hence becoming capacitated to stake a claim for regularization, (i) nonetheless the mere completion of 8 years in service as a daily wager by the petitioner under the respondents, would not per se entitle him, to, seek any vested right for his, immediately on completion of, the, relevant qualifying period of service as a daily wager, seeking conferment of the benefits of regularization in service upon him, as, the afore conferment is subject to certain fetters in as much as (a) prior to his being conferred the benefits of regularization his being put on a work charge basis (b) the conferment of benefit of regularization in service upon the workmen concerned being subject to availability of posts, and also subject to his occupying the relevant reckonable notch in the seniority list maintained for the relevant purpose by the respondents. 4. The respondent concerned in impugned Annexure A-2, and, also in their reply furnished to the writ petition, make disclosures that there was no possibility of the writ petitioner, on his completing, the requisite period of qualifying service to be put on a work charge basis, as the respondent-Department, does not have any work charge establishment. Consequently, any want of putting of the petitioner on a work charge basis does not suffer from any fallacy. 5. Be that as it may, the writ petitioner would succeed in staking a claim for his being regularized in service, immediately on his completing the requisite terms of service as a daily wager, under the respondents upon his adducing material on record, rather suggestive (a) that at the relevant time despite his occupying the relevant reckonable notch in the seniority list maintained by the respondents, for the relevant purpose, his candidature being ignored (b) that hence workmen junior to him being regularized. However, the afore evidence is lacking and the sequittor thereof is that on completion of the eligiblising term of daily wage by the petitioner, under the respondents, would not capacitate him to claim the conferment of benefit of regularization in service. 6. However, the petitioner, as apparent on a reading of, the, reply furnished to the writ petition, by the respondents, become regularized on 31.5.2016, whereas earlier thereto on 16.12.2015, he was amenable for his being regularized in service, and, that the afore benefit of regularization in service, upon the petitioner could not be conferred, on the afore date as there was an error in the service book, with respect to the parentage of the writ petitioner. Since now at the afore rectification has been done, and, further since it is merely a ministerial lapse and also when, the, identity of the writ petitioner has been established, hence as, a workmen under the respondents, thereupon on and from 16.12.2015, he is deemed to be, if permissible under the policy, regularized in service hence alongwith all consequential benefits. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands disposed of alongwith all pending applications.