Suresh Kumar vs H.P University And Another

Sureshwar Thakur, J

One Sher Singh had filed O.A No. 6331 of 2018, before the erstwhile H.P State Administrative Tribunal, and, therein he had arrayed the writ

petitioner, as, co-respondent No.3. The relief(s) sought therein by Sher Singh are extracted hereinafter:-

7(i) That the respondent University may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the applicant w.e.f 11.12.1992 qua the post of Architectural

Assistant Grade- II with all consequential benefits in light of the principle of parity as well as in light of the factum that the respondent University has

regularized the services of junior person i.e private respondent against the same post after rendering one year adhoc service qua the post of

Architectural Assistant Grade-II, whereas the services of the applicant were regularized after rendering 7 years service against the post of

Architectural Assistant Grade-II.

(ii) That the respondent University may kindly be directed to give promotion to the applicant to the post of Architectural Assistant w.e.f 11.12.1995

with all consequential benefits as per old Recruitment & Promotion Rules.

(iii) That the respondent University may kindly be directed to give promotion to the applicant to the post of Assistant Architect w.e.f 11.12.2001 with

all consequential benefits as per old Recruitment and Promotion Rules.

(iv) That the respondent University may kindly be directed to given promotion to the applicant to the post of Architect w.e.f 11.12.2009 with all

consequential benefits as per old Recruitment & Promotion Rules.

(v) That the respondent University may kindly be directed to carry the revision of pay scale of the applicant w.e.f 11.12.1995 qua the post of

Architectural Assistant, qua the post of Assistant Architect w.e.f 11.12.2001 and qua the post of Architect w.e.f 11.12.2009 with all consequential

benefits.â€​

However, on 4.12.2018, the erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal directed the respondent-University, to, after affording an opportunity of

personal hearing to the afore Sher Singh, and, to the petitioner herein, hence decide the afore claims reared in O.A No. 6331 of 2018. Consequently, in

pursuance thereof, the respondents through Annexure R-8, made a decision, for making rectification(s) of the date of regularization(s) in service,

hence against the apposite post(s), of, both the afore(s). The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the afore rectification. Even though, prima-facie the

rectification, as, made through Annexure R-8, vis-a-vis, the date of regularization in service of the writ petitioner, against, the apposite post, may

tentatively carry some legal tenacity, in as much, as, it emanates from instructions issued qua therewith,

(i) and, as become embodied in Annexure R- 7, appended with the reply filed to the writ petition, (ii) wherein, stipulations become borne, that only

after completion of 5 years of continuous service, in an adhoc capacity, the employee concerned would become entitled to be meted the benefit of

regularization in service, hence against the apposite post. Nonetheless, since the afore rule or cannon is to be applied, from the date of rendition of

service, by the aspirant concerned, hence on an adhoc capacity, against the post concerned, thereupon, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner,

argues, that, despite availability of posts as evident from Annexure P-3, whereons the petitioner became facilitated, to, render adhoc services, yet the

respondent-University denied to him the afore opportunity, and, also caused a severe damage for his being earlier considered, for regularization against

the relevant post.

The learned counsel for the writ petitioner, further argues, that since one Sher Singh was permitted to render duties, on an adhoc capacity against

the apposite post, and, when from commencements thereof(s), the apposite period of 5 years is to be computed, for, the benefit of regularization is

made, being meted to the aspirant concerned, (i) thereupon the inaction by the respondent concerned, upon, Annexure P-3, besides with its authorship

rather remaining un-controverted, by the respondent-university in its reply, galvanizes an inference, that the afore permissibly purveyable rendition(s)

of service, to the petitioner, in an adhoc capacity, by the respondent- University, when hence ensued to him in the year 1993, thereupon he therein held

a right to be thereat hence appointed thereagainst, and, or even nowat he is deemed to be appointed thereagainst in the year 1994, whereat he

completed three years of service, on, daily waged basis, for, hence his validly seeking qua his being assigned duties on an adhoc basis against the afore

vacant post, as, no consequential pecuniary benefit ensue therethrough, to, the petitioner.

The afore submission addressed before this Court, by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, has some vigor and is accepted. The prime reason,

for accepting the afore submission addressed before this Court, is squarely grooved, in the factum, of, Annexure P-3 remaining un-repulsed nor

obviously any adequate reply, in explication of non-compliance thereto, rather emanating from the respondent-University. Consequently, the uncalled

for denial to the writ petitioner, of an opportunity to render services in an adhoc capacity, against a vacant post which arose in the year 1993, and

whereto he rather in the year 1994, became entitled to, subject to its being thereat also vacant, hence becoming assigned duties thereon, on an adhoc

basis, has caused perpetration, of, discrimination, and, also sequels, the, ill-consequence, of, arbitrariness being indulged into by the respondent-

University rather merely for depriving the writ petitioner, to, since 1993/1994, claim the legitimate benefit of his being thereat(s) assigned adhoc duties,

against the relevant thereat, if so, rather vacant post. Since therefrom the period of rendition of apposite qualifying service, for, hence the benefit of

regularization in service becoming conferred upon him, rather under the instructions borne in Annexure R-7, becomes enjoined to be computed,

thereupon, the rectification of the date of regularization of services, of, the writ petitioner, and, as becomes made through Annexure R-8, is, grossly,

untenable, and, requires an interference being made by this Court, if both in the year 1993, and, in the year 1994 the apposite post was vacant.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and, the respondent-University is directed, to, in the year 1993/1994, if there was thereat, a,

vacant post, to, put the writ petitioner, on, an adhoc capacity against the relevant vacant post, and, thereafter therethrough compute a period of five

years, and, whereafter, the respondent-University is also directed, to, grant him the benefit of regularization(s) in service, in consonance with the

norms, as, becomes encapsulated in Annexure R-7. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.