Tarsem Chand vs State of HP and Others

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

(b) That the Respondents may kindly be directed to give work charged status of a Pump Operator to the applicant w.e.f. 1.1.1996 with all consequential benefits like seniority and back wages.

In the reply, the following facts are admitted:

(i). That the Petitioner had worked as Beldar w.e.f. 4.2.1986 to 31.8.1993 and thereafter as Pump Operator w.e.f. 1.9.1993. The Petitioner has been regularized on 28th March, 2007.

According to the Petitioner, on proper application of principles laid down by the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya''s case as explained in Gauri Dutt and Ors. v. State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366, the case requires reconsideration since the Petitioner has an option for regularization either in the post of Beldar or in the post of Pump Operator. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second Respondent/competent authority to consider the matter afresh with notice to the Petitioner and take appropriate action in the light of the judgment of this Court in Gauri Dutt''s case, referred to above. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and the reply. Needless to say that the claim for regularization after completion of eight/ten years of service as daily wager, subject to availability of vacancy will also be considered by the authority. The consequential benefits, if any, to which the Petitioner is found eligible shall be disbursed to him within another two months.

The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.