Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 793 (HP)

Vidhan Sharma v. State of H. P.

2025-04-24

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. The instant petition has been filed for the following substantive relief(s):- “That the respondents may be directed to regularize the services of the applicant with effect from 01.01.2011 with all consequential benefits.” 2. The case as set-up by the petitioner is that he was appointed as Hostel Care Taker (Store Keeper) in State Council for Education, Research and Training ( for short “SCERT”), on daily wages w.e.f. 11.11.2002, in terms of office order dated 06.11.2002, Annexure A-1. Petitioner is continuing in the same position and on the same terms till date. 3. It is averred that on 05.11.2002, the Secretary (Education) to the Government of H.P., vide communication of the same date, had conveyed to the Principal, SCERT, Solan, the approval of Chairman Finance Committee to engage Care Taker/Attendant and Sweeper on daily wage basis, subject to the condition that the ex-post facto approval of Finance Committee would be obtained in the matter. The wages of these daily wage employees were directed to be borne by the SCERT from its own funds. It was in pursuance to the aforesaid communication that the office order dated 06.11.2002, appointing petitioner as Hostel Care Taker (Store Keeper) in SCERT, was issued. 4. Petitioner has also placed reliance on the ‘Minutes of Meeting’ of the Finance Committee of SCERT, dated 31.10.2003, in which vide item No. 3, it was resolved as under:- Item No. 3 As far as Item No. 3 is concerned the members of the committee accorded their sanction to fill up the post of care taker and sweeper of the Hostel on year to year contract basis on a fixed salary of Rs. 5,000/- and 3,000/- per month respectively. It was decided that out of the present sanctioned posts of SCERT Society two posts i.e. one class III (Lab Attendant) and one class IV be surrendered and conversion of the same may be sought from the finance Department to Hostel of SCERT Society, so that their fixed salary could be drawn against the regular sanctioned/converted posts and not from the income of the Hostel. The procedure for filling up of these posts may strictly be followed in accordance with the norms already approved by the Govt. and conveyed to the field from time to time.” 5. The procedure for filling up of these posts may strictly be followed in accordance with the norms already approved by the Govt. and conveyed to the field from time to time.” 5. In sequel to aforesaid resolution, Principal-cum-Member Secretary, SCERT, had sought necessary sanction from the Principal Secretary (Education) with respect to conversion of posts of Laboratory Attendant and Class-IV into Care Taker and Sweeper in SCERT, Hostel Solan, H.P. 6. Petitioner had also submitted his individual representation to the authorities seeking regularization of his services on completion of the requisite period as per the regularization policy of the State Government. In response, the Director of Higher Education, vide communication dated 07.12.2011, addressed to the Principal, SCERT, had sought pointwise comments. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents/authorities did not take any decision which forced him to file the instant petition in the year 2015. 8. Respondents have filed their reply. The factual position as averred in the petition has not been denied. Their defence is that without there being substantive post of Care Taker in the SCERT Hostel, the services of petitioner could not be regularized. It is also contended that respondent No. 2, vide letter dated 16.12.2004, had directed respondent No. 3 to take action as per the norms of SCERT and because in SCERT norms there was no provision for regularization of employees engaged in society mode, the request of the petitioner could not be acceded to. 9. Respondents have also taken objection of petition being time barred. 10. Petitioner filed the rejoinder and has refuted the averments made in the reply. It has been submitted that the SCERT, Solan, imparts training and conduct orientation programmes for the teachers i.e. PGTs, Head Masters, Principals, College Lecturers and Deputy Directors etc. working with the State Government. The Government of Himachal Pradesh, exercises deep and pervasive control over the affairs of respondent No. 3. The Director Education, Joint Director Education and Under Secretary Finance are the members of third respondent, which by no means can be said to be a private society. It for all intents and purposes is discharging public functions, hence, it cannot be allowed to absolve itself by saying that the government rules were not applicable to its employees. The Director Education, Joint Director Education and Under Secretary Finance are the members of third respondent, which by no means can be said to be a private society. It for all intents and purposes is discharging public functions, hence, it cannot be allowed to absolve itself by saying that the government rules were not applicable to its employees. Petitioner has also placed on record a communication dated 20.07.2011, issued by Principal Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of H.P. to all the Principal Secretaries and Head of Departments in the State providing details of the terms and conditions of the regularization policy of the State Government. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. 12. At the outset, it is noticed that the plea raised by respondents to the effect that second respondent had issued directions to the third respondent to take action as per society norms, vide letter dated 16.12.2004 is not substantiated. No such document has been placed on record. The said plea rather becomes doubtful as the communication dated 14.01.2005, Annexure A-4, on record from respondent No. 3 to the Principal Secretary (Education) clearly reveals that the third respondent had sought necessary sanction for conversion of posts of Lab Attendant and Class-IV into posts of Care Taker and Sweeper for SCERT Hostel, Solan, H.P. In this correspondence, there was no reference to the alleged communication dated 16.12.2004, issued by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3. The said contention is further belied from the contents of document i.e. communication dated 07.12.2011, from respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3, placed on record as Annexure A-5, whereby such respondent had sought comments on the representation of the petitioner, by way of which the petitioner had sought regularization of his services on completion of ten years. 13. Thus, it is clearly evident that the respondents have failed to take any final decision in the matter of petitioner. 14. It is sufficiently shown on record that there was genuine need and requirement for the post of Hostel Care Taker in SCERT, Solan. The Secretary (Education) had conveyed approval of Chairman Finance Committee to engage Care Taker on daily wage basis vide communication dated 05.11.2002, Annexure A-2. It was subject to only one condition that ex post facto approval of Finance Committee was to be taken. The Secretary (Education) had conveyed approval of Chairman Finance Committee to engage Care Taker on daily wage basis vide communication dated 05.11.2002, Annexure A-2. It was subject to only one condition that ex post facto approval of Finance Committee was to be taken. The Finance Committee, admittedly, had accorded the sanction to the posts of Care Taker and Sweeper in the Hostel. A decision was taken by the Finance Committee to this effect in its meeting held on 31.10.2003. It was further decided that out of the sanctioned post of SCERT, two posts i.e. one Class-III (Lab Attendant) and one Class-IV be surrendered and permission for conversion of the same be sought from the Finance Department, in order to enable the SCERT to draw the fixed salary of Care Taker and Sweeper against the regular sanctioned/converted post and not from the income of the hostel. It was after the aforesaid decision of the Finance Committee that the third respondent had sought the permission from the Principal Secretary (Education), vide Annexure A-4, as noticed above. 15. However, evidently no final decision has been taken by the competent authority till date. Petitioner is now working for last about twenty-three years. 16. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the entity of SCERT being an instrumentality of State Government. It discharges public functions. The SCERT is nothing but an extended wing of Government. Under the garb of being a society, it cannot use exploitative policies against its employees. In other words, the SCERT cannot be allowed to be used by the State for said exploitative policies. 17. Once, the petitioner was appointed in SCERT after the grant of sanction by the Chairman Finance Committee and subsequently, ratified by the Finance Committee, to say that petitioner will not be entitled for the benefits of regularization at par with similarly situated employees of State will be unjustified and antithetic to the Constitutional Principle laid down in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 18. In the given circumstances, the petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondents to consider and take a final decision in the case of petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of the passing of this order, strictly in terms of the observations made hereinabove. 19. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 20. List for compliance on 19.06.2025.