Daljeet Singh vs Versus State of H.P. and Others

Deepak Gupta, J. 1. Petitioner was engaged as a daily-rated Pump Operator, on 1st December, 1997. He became eligible for regularization, on completion of eight years service, as per Government policy. His services were not regularized. He made various representations, but to no avail. So, he has filed the present petition, seeking direction for regularization of his services as Pump Operator.

Stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner does not fulfil the requisite qualification of ITI Certificate and that Government has rejected the proposal made by the department for relaxing the condition of ITI Certificate and that is why he has not been regularized.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

It is by now well settled that where a person is appointed on daily-wage basis, his qualification for eligibility to the post, to which he is appointed, is to be seen, at the time of his initial engagement as daily-wager and not at the time when his turn comes for regularization, as per policy of the Government. Reference in this behalf may be made to judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court, in Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, and judgment dated 23rd April, 2010, delivered by a Single Bench of this Court, in CWP (T) No. 3214 of 2008, titled as Sita Ram v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and another. Facts of the case decided by learned Single Judge of this Court were similar to the facts of the present case.

In view of the abovestated position, writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as Pump Operator, from the date when he completed eight years of service as daily-wage worker, ignoring the condition of ITI Certificate, as prescribed in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of Pump Operators. No order as to costs.