Leelawati Sharma vs State Of H.P. & Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of present petition are as under:Â Petitioner was initially appointed as a Compiler in the Regional

Tabulation Office at Shimla, H.P., by the Census Department, w.e.f. 1st May, 1991 to 29th February, 1992 and thereafter, from 3rd March, 1992 to

30th November, 1992. As per the petitioner, respondents/State absorbed the employees, who were working in the Census Department in different

departments, however, petitioner was not accommodated by the respondents. She made a request to the Chief Minister and vide Annexure PÂ2,

dated 27th June, 1997, the office of the Chief Minister communicated with Joint Secretary (General Administration), granting approval for appointing

the petitioner by giving her relaxation in age. As nothing happened thereafter, petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court and in compliance to the

directions passed by this Court, respondentsÂState vide Annexure PÂ3, dated 23rd November, 1998, called upon the petitioner to appear in a written

test scheduled for 29th November, 1998, for being engaged against the post of a Clerk on daily wage basis. Thereafter, vide communication dated

20th December, 1999 (Annexure PÂ4), petitioner was offered appointment as a Clerk on daily wage basis, in Himachal Pradesh Public Works

Department, Jubbal, against a regular vacant post. Petitioner could not join the said post on account of her domestic circumstances and she made a

request to be accommodated or adjusted in Shimla town. Vide Annexure PÂ6, dated 5th December, 2000, EngineerÂinÂChief, Himachal Pradesh

Public Works Department, sent a communication to the Superintending Engineer 10th Circle, Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, Bilaspur,

mentioning therein that the Government of Himachal Pradesh had decided to absorb the retrenched staff of 1991 Census in various Departments and

petitioner be engaged on daily wage basis against existing vacant ClassÂIII posts. This was followed by an Appointment Letter, dated 9th January,

2001 (Annexure PÂ7). Petitioner joined as a Clerk w.e.f. 12th February, 2001, at Ghumarwin. Her services stood regularised vide Annexure PÂ9,

w.e.f. 16th April, 2010. The petition stands filed by petitioner, praying for a direction that the respondents/ State be directed to regularise the services

of the petitioner with effect from the initial date of her appointment, i.e. 12th February, 2001, with all consequential benefits and also to count her

previous service rendered in the Census Department, for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

The petition has been opposed by the respondents/State inter alia on the ground that despite being offered engagement on daily wage basis in the

year 1997, the petitioner did not join the service and on her request, thereafter, she was adjusted at Ghumarwin initially on daily wage basis and her

services were regularised after completion of the requisite number of years as per policy of the Government. It was denied that she stood engaged on

daily wage basis as a Clerk. As per the respondents, she was engaged on daily wage basis as a Store Clerk, on 5th December, 2000. According to the

respondents, the claim of the petitioner not only is hopelessly delayed, but the petitioner was also guilty of not approaching the Court with clean hands

as she has not disclosed that after she failed to join in Jubbal Division pursuant to appointment offered to her in the year 1997, her appointment as a

daily wage Clerk was cancelled by the Superintending Engineer, 14th Circle, Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, Rohru, vide letter

No.3891Â93, dated 17.08.2000. Petitioner made an application to the EngineerÂinÂChief (PWD), on 15th September, 2000, with the request that she

be posted at Bilaspur instead of Jubbal. Taking a lenient view, she was posted as a Store Clerk on daily wage basis in the office of Superintending

Engineer, 10th Circle, Bilaspur. Employment on daily wage basis was provided to the retrenched incumbents of the Census Department, who were

below the age of 35 years and relaxation was given to the petitioner, as she had crossed the age of 35 years. Respondents/State have thus denied the

claim of the petitioner on the ground that the incumbents, who were earlier serving in the Census Department, were all initially engaged on daily wage

basis and thereafter, their services were regularised in terms of the policy of regularization.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis as a Store Clerk in the year 2001, as has been mentioned by the petitioner in

the writ petition itself and the present petition has been field by her in the year 2010 and that too after her services stood regularised in terms of the

policy of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner could not justify as to why there

was a delay of almost a decade in the petitioner approaching the Court for the reliefs prayed for in the petition, as nothing prevented the petitioner

from approaching the Court earlier. It appears that it is only after her services were regularised and when the petitioner realized that now she had

nothing to lose that she approached the Court, praying for the reliefs mentioned therein.

Be that as it may, fact of the matter is that in the year 1997, petitioner was offered the post of Clerk on daily wage basis, which she did not accept

and the offer was rescinded by the State. Thereafter, on her request, she was offered appointment as a Store Clerk in 10th Circle, Himachal Pradesh

Public Works Department, Bilaspur, on daily wage basis and she joined as such on 9th January, 2001. This appointment was accepted by her without

any protest and thus, she acquiesced to the offer of the post made to her by the State on daily wage basis. Not only this, she did not file any petition

etc. within some reasonable time, assailing the act of the State of not offering appointment to her on regular basis. That being the case, now the

petitioner is otherwise also estopped from praying that her services be regularised from the initial date of her appointment. Even otherwise, petitioner

has not been able to point out as to what illegality has been committed by the State in offering her appointment in the year 2001 and that too, on her

request in 10th Circle, Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, Bilaspur, on daily wage basis. It has not been proved on record that other

persons similarly situated as the petitioner were offered appointment on regular basis, whereas the petitioner has been discriminated.

That being the case, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending miscellaneous

applications, if any, stand disposed of.