Rishi vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Others

Rajiv Sharma, J.—The petitioner was engaged as Sweeper in the respondent-Corporation on 18.4.1998. He worked uninterruptedly for more than eight years and completed 240 days in a block of twelve calendar months. He has not been regularized. The petitioner in fact, as per the record, has completed eight years of continuous service on 18.4.2006. The only reason assigned for not regularizing the petitioner is that he has been appointed without following the proper procedure.

One Ranjeet Singh also filed CWP No. 5403 of 2010 seeking regularization after completion of eight years service as Clerk. The objection raised by the respondent-Corporation was that he could not be regularized since he was appointed without following the proper procedure. CWP No. 5403 of 2010 was allowed by learned Single Judge of this Court on 2.5.2011 and the respondent-corporation was directed to regularize the services of the petitioner. The respondent-Corporation filed an LPA against the judgment dated 2.5.2011, which was also rejected by this Court on 13.4.2012.

Ranjeet Singh and similarly situate persons were regularized vide office order dated 27.7.2012. The respondent-Corporation has not placed on record any material how the engagement of the petitioner on 18.4.1998 was not in accordance with the procedure. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner has been working uninterruptedly since 18.4.1998. He has completed eight years of continuous service, which entitles him to be regularized. The letter dated 4.7.2009, stated in para 2 of the reply is not applicable in the present case. The facts of the case titled Sharmila Sharma vs. Dr. Y.S. Parmar University were different. In that case, the appointment was made on the basis of recommendations made by the outside agency.

The plea raised by the respondent-Corporation that the petitioner has not been appointed in accordance with law will not come in the way of the petitioner seeking regularization at this stage. The respondent-Corporation ought to have been cautious at the time when he was engaged. This plea has been raised only to deprive the petitioner status of regular employee.

Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent-Corporation is directed to regularize the petitioner immediately after completion of eights years of service, i.e. 18.4.2006 with continuity in service. It is made clear that the entitlement of the actual back wages will be restricted to 36 months. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.