Balwan Singh Pathania vs State Of H.P. & Others

 Sureshwar Thakur, J

 1. The admitted facts, as exist on the record, of this case, display, that the writ petitioner was initially engaged, as, a Clerk on daily need basis, on

5.9.1997, and, upon his service becoming terminated, on 19.11.2003, he in pursuance to a verdict, as, embodied respectively, in, Annexure PÂ1, and, in

Annexure PÂ​2, became reinstated in service, though without loosing his seniority, yet, without pecuniary benefits becoming bestowed upon him.

The relief canvassed in the extant writ petition, is confined to the respondents, being meted, a, mandamus, for regularizing him in service, and, the

afore espousal, is anchored upon one Jagdeep Singh, an employee similarly situate to the writ petitioner, becoming conferred, the, benefit of

regularization in service.

Be that as it may, the merit of the afore, is to be adjudged from the stand point, whether the afore canvassed parity, is, borne out from the records

of the case. However, a perusal of, the, uncontroverted reply, meted to the writ petition, by the respondents, rather reveals, that the afore Jagdeep

Singh, belongs not to a category of employees wheretowhich, the petitioner belongs, and, also with revelation being cast in the reply affidavit, sworn by

an officer, of the respondents, that he has been issued, a, show cause notice, for withdrawal of the benefit, of, regularization, in service becoming

conferred upon him, (i) given the apposite policy, articulating that the benefits of regularization in service, rather being conferred, in, consonance with

seniority. Significantly, since the writ petitioner, has not challenged, the validity or the vires, of, the afore policy, hence making contemplations that the

benefit of regularization in service, being conferable upon him, or, upon alike with him employees, upon, anvil, of, the apposite seniority being kept in

mind, (ii) and, also when no material has been placed on record, by the writ petitioner, that his notch or place in the seniority, entitles him nowat to the

benefit of regularization, in service, (iii) thereupon for want of the afore material, before this Court, constrains this Court to decline the espoused relief

to the petitioner. However, if in consonance with the policy formulated by the respondents, for regularizing the service(s) of the writ petitioner, he is

entitled thereto, he be forthwith conferred the benefit, of, regularization in service.

In view of the afore observations, the writ petition is allowed, with all incidental and consequential therewith benefits. All pending applications, if

any, also stand disposed of.