Mohinder Kumar vs State of H.P. and Others

V.K. Sharma, J.—The writ petition has been filed on the following prayer:

That Respondents may be ordered to regularize the services of the Petitioner as JDM from the date he completed 8 years of service with all the benefits incidental thereof in the light of the law laid down in Gauri Dutt v. State of H.P. after seeking his option.

In reply, the Respondents, besides raising the following preliminary objection, have taken the following stand vide paras 2 and 3 on merits:

That the present petition is barred on the ground of delay and latches. The Petitioner admittedly worked in three different categories on daily wages basis i.e. beldar, receptionist and thereafter JDM, but he himself opted for his regularization as receptionist in Oct. 2007 being the lower category to JDM and also joined as such. Therefore, at this belated stage his plea is barred on the ground of 2 delay and latches. Hence the petition filed by the Petitioner be dismissed on this ground above.

That the working days detail of the Petitioner are annexed as annexure-R-1. The kind perusal of same reveals that the Petitioner had worked in three different categories. Further the lowest category of these is beldar and the Petitioner was liable to be regularized as beldar in terms of Gauri Dutt judgment upon completion of 10 years continue service subject to availability of posts by combining the period of all three categories, but Petitioner did not avail this opportunity and waited till the cutoff date, when he became eligible for granting regular status in the category of receptionist i.e. next higher category in terms of prevalent policy of the day. he also joined during Oct, 2007, when offer of appointment was made to him upon receipt of sanction of post by the Government and joined as such without any protest since then. Hence now at this belated stage his claim in the next high post of JDM for regularization is not sustainable & permissible.

That in reply to this para, it is submitted, that the case of Virender Verma is not identical to the fact and circumstances of present case. On two accounts, firstly, barred by limitations secondly, No. having identical facts as that in Virender Kumar case. This being so, because in Virender Kumar petition seeking regularization was pending before Ld. Administrative Tribunal and in this case Petitioner himself sought regularization as receptionist in the lower category and now after 4 years has come up with present plea. Hence this case is not similar situated to Virender Verma case.

Along with the reply the Respondents have also filed ''Detail of man days'' in respect of the Petitioner as Annexure R-I, which is as under:

Detail of man days in respect of Sh. Mohidner Kumar S/O Sh. Puran Ram Beldar/Receptionist/JDM working HP. PWD, Shimla Sub-Division No. VII, w.e.f. 1.1.1994 to 11.10.2007.

Sl. No.

Year

Days

1

1994

360 As Beldar

2

1995

361

3

1996

366

4

1.1.97 to 31.05.1997

151

5

1.6.97 to 31.12.1997

214 As Receptionist

6

1998

365

7

1.1.1999 to 31.3.1999

90

8

1.4.1999 to 31.12.1999

275 As JDM

9

2000

366

10

2001

360

11

2002

363

12

2003

361

13

2004

366

14

2005

365

15

2006

365

16

1.2007 to 11.10.2007

284

It is manifest from the detail of man days Annexure R-I that the Petitioner had worked in the Respondent-department in three capacities viz. Beldar, Receptionist and Junior Draftsman. As Beldar he had completed 240 days only in three years during 1994 to 31.5.1997. Similarly, as Receptionist, he had completed 240 days only in one year during 1.6.1997 to 31.3.1999. However, as Junior Draftsman, he had already completed 240 days during all the nine years between 1.4.1999 to 11.10.2007. Thus, it was incumbent upon the Respondents to have considered the case of the Petitioner for regularization of his services as Junior Draftsman/grant of work charge status, after obtaining option, if any, from him, in accordance with the policy framed by the State Government, as applicable at the relevant time and not as Receptionist, in the light of the common judgment dated 29.12.2007, rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 778 of 2007, Gauri Dutt v. State of H.P and Ors. and the connected matters.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed with a direction to the Respondents/competent authority to re-consider the case of the Petitioner for regularization of his services as Junior Draftsman/grant of work charge status, along with consequential benefits, if any, within a period of three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the Petitioner, after affording an opportunity of being heard to him, if so desired.

The writ petition, so also pending application (s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms.