Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 758 (HP)

Ravinder Kumar v. State of H. P.

2025-04-21

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Petitioner, a Class-IV employee seeks retrospective regularization of his services as Class-IV employee and also promotion from retrospective effect to the post of Clerk (Class-III). 2. Background 2(i) Petitioner was initially appointed as part-time Chowkidar-cum-Sweeper on 01.07.2000 in the office of respondent No.4. On 01.01.2001, he was engaged on daily wage basis as Chowkidar-cum-Sweeper in respondents No.3 & 4-District Rural Development Agency, District Hamirpur. Petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar-cum-Sweeper on regular basis in District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) Hamirpur w.e.f. 24.03.2011. Petitioner accepted this order and joined as Chowkidar-cum-Sweeper in DRDA on regular basis without any demur. 2(ii) Services of the petitioner were merged in respondent No.2/State-Rural Development Department on 24.09.2012. Petitioner accordingly joined Rural Development Department on 03.10.2012. At this stage also no objection whatsoever was raised by the petitioner regarding any error in the date of his regularization. 2(iii) Petitioner preferred representations on 26.03.2021 (Annexure P-4) & 01.08.2022 (Annexure P-5) seeking promotion to the post of Clerk. 2(iv) Respondent Rural Department has not as yet promoted petitioner on the Class-III post of Clerk. Petitioner feels aggrieved and has accordingly instituted this petition for following reliefs:- “(i) That the respondent department may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner with retrospective effect with effect from 01.1.2009 instead of 23.03.2011 and thereafter, be directed to pay regularization as well as other consequential benefit to the petitioner till date alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum and release the same as soon as possible. (ii) That the respondent may be directed to grant promotion to the petitioner from retrospective effect or as and when due, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and thereafter consequential benefit flowing from it.” 3. At this juncture, it is relevant to take note of the stand of the respondents in their reply and also the written instructions dated 21.11.2023 that it was with the approval of the Finance Department on 17.09.2012 that services of 125 DRDA borne employees of the 12 DRDAs’ in the State including the petitioner, were merged in the Rural Development Department under State Government notification dated 24.09.2012. The merged DRDAs’ borne staff became employees of Rural Development Department w.e.f. 24.09.2012. The merged DRDAs’ borne staff became employees of Rural Development Department w.e.f. 24.09.2012. These employees are governed by the prevailing Recruitment and Promotions Rules (R&P Rules) for their respective categories as well as instructions issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh from time to time. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. Petitioner has raised two fold grievances in this petition: First that his services were required to be regularized retrospectively from much earlier date, whereas the respondents have regularized his services only on 24.03.2011; Second even though petitioner is eligible for promotion to the post of Clerk-Class-III (Non Gazetted) Ministerial Services, yet the respondents have till date not promoted him on Class-III post. 4(i) Insofar as the first relief prayed for by the petitioner is concerned, suffice to note that petitioner’s services were regularized by respondents No.3 & 4 on 24.03.2011. Petitioner accepted this regularization order as also the date from which his services were so regularized as Chowkidar-cum-Sweeper. It is not even the case of the petitioner that he ever raised any demur or protest till the filing of this petition about any error on part of the respondents in regularizing his services w.e.f. 23.03.2011. Admittedly, neither at the time of joining pursuant to aforesaid regularization nor at any time thereafter petitioner preferred even semblance of any representation to the respondents to regularize his services from a date anterior to 24.03.2011. Petitioner laid his claim for retrospective regularization w.e.f. 01.01.2009 only in this writ petition filed on 23.06.2023. Such belated claim without explaining the delay and laches cannot be entertained. 4(ii) Insofar as petitioner’s claim for promotion to the post of Clerk is concerned, respondents in their reply/instructions have submitted that: (i) After merger in the State Rural Development Department, petitioner was placed appropriately in the seniority list issued in the department. Chowkidar-cum-Sweepers appointed prior to the petitioner’s merger have been placed seniors to him. Chowkidar-cum-Sweepers, whose services were regularized prior to the petitioner’s in DRDA have also been placed seniors to him; (ii) There are incumbents, who are seniors to the petitioner as Class IV employees and eligible for promotion to the Class-III post of Clerk. (iii) Promotion to the post of Clerk is governed by Common Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Clerk, Class-III (Non- Gazetted) Ministerial Services in various Departments of Himachal Pradesh. (iii) Promotion to the post of Clerk is governed by Common Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Clerk, Class-III (Non- Gazetted) Ministerial Services in various Departments of Himachal Pradesh. Under these rules, promotion to Class-III post of Clerk from Class-IV is permissible under 10% quota. This quota is already filled up (at the time of filing of the reply). (iv) On availability of vacancy under 10% quota in terms of applicable R&P Rules eligible Class-IV incumbents will be considered for promotion as per seniority/rules. Presently, there are senior incumbents awaiting their promotion to the post of Clerk, for this reason, petitioner has not been promoted till date to the post of Clerk. The respondents have aptly justified not promoting the petitioner (Class-IV) to the post of Clerk (Class-III) as seniors to him in the cadre are eligible and awaiting their promotion to the Class-III post of Clerk. There is no challenge to the seniority list in the petition. Necessary parties have also not been impleaded in the petition, 5. For the aforesaid reasons, petitioner is not entitled for:- (i) regularization of his services as Class-IV employee prior to 24.03.2011 and (ii) promotion to the post of Clerk (Class-III) over the claim of his seniors, who are also eligible for promotion to the post of Clerk (Class-III) and are awaiting promotion as per seniority positions & availability of vacancy in clerical cadre. The present petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.