Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 248 (HP)

Ranvir Singh Chauhan v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2021-04-19

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2021
JUDGMENT : VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J. 1. By way of the instant petition, petitioner has approached the Court seeking regularization of his services immediately on completion of eight years of daily wage service as a Clerk in Nagar Panchayat Narkanda w.e.f. 02.05.2002. Whereas, respondents have regularized him vide order dated 18.08.2007 (Annexure P-3) with prospective effect of the said order after applying regularization Policy of the Government dated 09.06.2006. 2. As evident from order dated 18.08.2007 (Annexure P-3) as indicated in remarks column, petitioner has been working against vacant post. Petitioner was appointed as a daily wage Clerk in May 1994 in Nagar Panchayat Narkanda and he has been serving against vacant post and has completed eight years of service on the date of issuance of regularization Policy dated 09.06.2006 which has also been made applicable to the daily wagers of Urban Local Bodies vide letter dated 11.04.2007, who have completed eight years on the date of issuance of regularization Policy, were to be regularized against the said vacant posts. 3. It is case of the respondents that the Policy has to be made applicable with prospective effect and, therefore, petitioner has been rightly regularized w.e.f. 18.08.2007 that is the date of order of his regularization passed after application of regularization Policy to the Urban Local Bodies. 4. It is claim of the petitioner that omission and commission on the part of the respondents are discriminatory in nature as the respondent-Department has regularized similarly situated persons immediately on completion of eight years of service in cases of other persons serving in Nagar Panchayat (now Nagar Parishad) Rohru. Petitioner in para-12 (d) of the petition has categorically stated that in furtherance of the order passed by the Court to consider the case of the petitioners in CWP(T) No.1728 of 2008, titled as Kushal Chand and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and CWP(T) No.1735 of 2008, titled as Bablu and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, respondents have regularized services of those petitioners immediately on completion of eight years of their services. Copies of judgments have also been placed on record as Annexures P-6 and P-7. 5. Copies of judgments have also been placed on record as Annexures P-6 and P-7. 5. Perusal of judgment passed in CWP(T) No.1728 of 2008 (supra) indicates that respondents No.1 and 2 were directed to consider cases of the petitioners therein for regularization immediately after completion of eight years of service instead of prospective date of regularization in those cases with all consequential benefits within a period of ten weeks from the date of passing of the order and CWP(T) No. 1735 of 2008 (supra) was also decided in the same terms on the basis of judgment passed in CWP(T) No.1728 of 2008. 6. In response to the aforesaid plea of the petitioner, in reply, it is stated that judgments in those cases were judgments in rem and not in personam with further averments that however, services of petitioners in those writ petitions, were regularized from back date in pursuance to the judgments of the Court duly examined by the Department of Law to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 7. It is not in dispute that petitioner as well as petitioners in above referred writ petitions, were serving with Urban Local Bodies on daily wage basis and were regularized from prospective date in application of the Policy dated 09.06.2006 and services of all of them are under control of respondents No.1 and 2. Therefore, in principle, except the post and Urban Local Body of the petitioner herein, and the petitioners in above referred writ petitions, everything is identical in nature. Therefore, omission and commission on the part of the respondents, not treating the petitioner in similar fashion in which petitioners in CWP(T) No.1728 of 2008 and CWP(T) No.1735 of 2008 (supra) were considered, is discriminatory and, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 8. Being a case identical in facts to the cases of judgments in CWP(T) No.1728 of 2008 and CWP(T) No.1735 of 2008 (supra) , judgments passed in those cases shall also be applicable in present case mutatis mutandi, for all intent and purposes. 9. 8. Being a case identical in facts to the cases of judgments in CWP(T) No.1728 of 2008 and CWP(T) No.1735 of 2008 (supra) , judgments passed in those cases shall also be applicable in present case mutatis mutandi, for all intent and purposes. 9. In view of above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization immediately after completion of eight years service for the post of Clerk instead of 18.08.2007, with all consequential benefits on or before 30.06.2021 strictly in consonance with principles laid down in judgments passed in CWP(T) No.1728 of 2008 and CWP(T) No.1735 of 2008 (supra). Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.