Sh. Rajiv Puri vs The State of Himachal Pradesh

Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.—This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

"i) The respondents may be directed to consider and regularize the applicant as Junior Engineer w.e.f. the date the Respondents 3&4-junior were regularized as in (A-3) with all consequential benefits like seniority and arrears of salary etc. forthwith.

ii) In the alternative, that the Respondents may be directed to consider and regularize the applicant on the basis of the long, continuous and uninterrupted service of 11 years, as per the law and the submissions in ground (h) of the OA, forthwith.

iii) In the alternative, the respondents may be directed to consider and regularize the applicant as a Junior Engineer on the basis of the policy of regularization or the settled law providing for such regularization with all consequential benefits, forthwith."

Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis as Junior Engineer in Municipal Council, Dharmashala w.e.f. 1st April, 1994. The respondents Nos. 3 & 4 were also engaged as Junior Engineers on daily wage basis in Municipal Council, Dalhousie and in the office of Director Urban Development Shimla respectively in the year, 1999. The services of both the respondents were regularized as J.E in October, 2000 whereas, the services of the petitioner were not regularized till the filing of the present writ petition.

In reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2, it has been submitted that since the petitioner had only served for a period of six years up to 31.3.2000, therefore, as per the policy of the State Government, his services could not be regularized. On the other hand, respondents No. 3 & 4 being contractual employees having engaged through employment exchange after resorting to the procedure prescribed for the purpose were regularized on availability of sanctioned posts.

This Court has been informed that during the pendency of the writ petition, the services of the petitioner have also been regularized as Junior Engineer, however, prospectively.

Thus the only grievance now left to be redressed, is qua regularization of the services of the petitioner from the date when his juniors i.e., respondents No. 3 & 4, were regularized.

Although, as per the stand taken by 1st and 2nd respondents, respondents No. 3 and 4 having been appointed on contractual basis after fulfilling all codal formalities, cannot be equated with the petitioner, yet this Court deem it proper to direct 1st and 2nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner also for regularization, if any sanctioned post was available at that time and he was eligible, as per Rules.

Thus there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent and Municipal Council, Dharamshala to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in the light of the above observations and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of production of the copy of this judgment alongwith that of the writ petition by the petitioner. The writ petition stands accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.