Shakuntla Devi vs State Of H.P And Others

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

This writ petition has been filed for the following prayers:-

"(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization on the completion of eight years of services in the light of judgment passed in the case of Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of HP (Annexure P-3) by granting all the consequential benefits alongwith upto date interest.

(ii) That the respondents may further be directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner contained in Annexure P-4 dated 8.8.2019 within time bound period."

The stand taken by the respondents in their reply is that subsequent to filing of the writ petition, the matter of the petitioner qua her mandays during the year 1995 was re-examined. It was found from her musteroll that she had completed 280 days in the year 1995. The respondents further acknowledged in their reply that the Screening Committee in the year 2007 by way of some over sight did not consider the correct musteroll of the petitioner regarding her mandays in the year 1995 and that the department is now considering/rectifying the order of petitioner's regularization. The relevant part of the reply reads as under:-

"2. That petitioner after completion of her services was superannuated from HPPWD on 29.02.2016 after completion of 58 years. The petitioner submitted grievance to the department that she was wrongly regularized on 01.01.2004 whereas petitioner should have been regularized w.e.f. 01.01.2003 as the petitioner completed 240 days in the year, 1995. After screening the representation of petitioner the respondents department again examined the matter of petitioner qua her mandays in the year 1995 and found from her mustroll that she has completed 280 days in the year, 1995 and the Executive Engineer brought this fact to the notice of Superintending Engineer, 6th Circle, HPPWD, Kullu copy of letter dated 07.10.2020 from Executive Engineer, to Superintending Engineer, 6th Circle, HPPWD, Kullu is enclosed Annexure R-2.

The respondents while regularizing many persons/beldars in the department and Screening Committee in the year 2007 must have over right the musteroll of the petitioner regarding her mandays in the year 1995 which action is not intentional nor deliberately but due to reasons stated above and now the department is considering/rectifying the order of petitioner's regularization and matter is under process. The detail of mandays from 1995 to 2003 are enclosed Annexure R-3."

In view of the above stand taken by the respondents, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to process the case of the petitioner and pass necessary order in that regard as undertaken by them in para-3 of the reply within a period of six weeks from today. In case there is rectification in the regularization order of the petitioner then she shall be entitled to admissible consequential benefits flowing from that order. Liberty is also reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law in case she still feels aggrieved. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.