Rakesh Sharma And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Petitioners’ complaint is that the respondents have not regularized their services in accordance with the Regularization Policy of the State as contained in Annexures P-7 and P-8, dated 17.8.2012 and 31.8.2012, respectively.

Bare minimum facts to be noticed for adjudication of the writ petition are that the petitioners were appointed by the respondents on contract basis on 19.5.2006. On 17.8.2012, the respondents conveyed a decision (Annexure P-7) regarding regularization of services of contractual employees after completion of six years of service. This decision was followed by office communication dated 31.8.2012 (Annexure P-8), whereby in continuation to the office letter dated 17.8.2012, it was decided by the State Government to regularize the services of contractual appointees after completion of six years service as on 31.3.2012, subject to terms and conditions mentioned therein. The petitioners’ grouse as projected by their learned counsel is that they had completed six years of contractual service as on 19.5.2012 and they fell within the ambit of office letter dated 17.8.2012 (Annexure P-7), therefore, their services were required to be regularized w.e.f. 18.8.2012 i.e. immediately after issuance of Annexure P-7.

The stand taken by the respondents is that the office letter dated 17.8.2012 (Annexure P-7) was followed by Annexure P-8 dated 31.8.2012, wherein 31.3.2012 was fixed as the cut off date for completion of six years of contractual service for the purpose of regularization. The petitioners had not completed six years of contractual service as on 31.3.2012, therefore, their services were not regularized in terms of Annexures P-7 and P-8. The respondents in their reply have also submitted that on 04.04.2013, an office communication was issued regarding decision of the State Government w.r.t. regularization of contractual appointees, who had completed six years of service as such on 31.3.2013. The petitioners having completed six years of contractual services on 19.5.2012 fell within the ambit of the cut off date indicted in the office communication dated 04.04.2013. Accordingly, their services were regularized in terms of office letter dated 04.04.2013 (Annexure R-1). Separate office orders regularizing the services of all the three petitioners were accordingly issued on 05.04.2013.

The petitioners are claiming regularization of their contractual services in terms of Annexure P-7, dated 17.8.2012 whereby it was decided by the government to regularize the services of contractual appointees after completion of six years of service. This office communication (Annexure P-7) was followed by Annexure P-8, dated 31.8.2012. Annexure P-8 was issued in continuation of the office letter dated 17.8.2012. 31. 3.2012 was stipulated as the cut off date in Annexure P-8 for completion of six years of service for the purpose of regularization of contractual service. Admittedly, the petitioners had not completed six years of contractual service by 31. 3.2012. The petitioners have not laid any challenge to Annexures P-7 and P-8. The petitioners did not fall within the ambit of cut off date fixed in office communication dated 31.8.2012 (Annexure P-8), therefore, the respondents were justified in not considering the cases of the petitioners for regularization of their contractual service in terms of Annexures P-7 and P-8, as the petitioners did not fulfill the terms and conditions mentioned therein for regularization of contractual services. It is also not in dispute that subsequent to Annexure P-8, the government came up with another Policy on 04.04.2013 (Annexure R-1), vide which the services of contractual appointees, who completed six years of service as on 31.3.2013, were to be regularized. It is admitted case of the petitioners that their services were regularized by the respondents in terms of the Policy contained in office communication dated 04.04.2013 (Annexure R-1) on 05.04.2013 i.e. immediately after issuance of Annexure R-1. The petitioners have not been able to demonstrate any legal right for claiming regularization w.e.f. 18.8.2012. The claim of the petitioners seeking regularization w.e.f. 18.8.2012 is based only upon Annexures P-7 and P-8, however, they did not fulfill the requirements laid down in Annexure P-8. The regularization cases of the petitioners fell within the ambit of Policy at Annexure R-1 and their services were accordingly regularized on 05.04.2013 in accordance with Annexure R-1 dated 04.04.2013.

In view of above, I find no merit in the claim of the petitioners. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, alongwith the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.