Tilak Chand vs State Of H.P And Others

Sureshwar Thakur, J

Uncontrovertedly the petitioner, joined in the year 9.9.1997, as a daily waged workman with the respondents. He continued in the afore capacity, up

to, his regularization in the afore capacity, in, the year 16.8.2007. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits, that in consonance with the

pronouncement(s) rendered by this Court, respectively, in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 titled as Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P alongwith connected

matters and others, and, in CWP No. 2415 of 2012 titled as Mathu Ram versus Municipal Corporation and others, and, in LPA No. 194 of 2015 titled

as State of H.P and others versus Gian Singh, (a) rather the entitlement of daily rated workmen to beget regularization, become declared to accrue

upon theirs’ hence completing 8 years of continuous service, under, the employer concerned. Consequently, the learned counsel, for, the petitioner

submits that the petitioner became entitled for regularization in service in the year 2005, than, in the year 2007.

However, the afore prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is, vehemently opposed by Mr. Hemanshu Mishra, learned Additional

Advocate General, and, he submits that the afore identically placed workmen in the afore verdict, visÂaÂvis, the petitioner herein, though were

bestowed the afore benefits, however, the petitioner yet cannot be treated alike the afore beneficiaries, (a) as, the cause of action accrued to the

petitioner in the year 2007, and, since then up to now, there is an immense lapse of time, (b) besides, when the afore delay remains inexplicated, (c)

thereupon, the, benefits of the verdicts supra rendered by this Court hence cannot be extended to him. Also it is contended that thereupon, since the

petitioner has acquiesced qua his being aptly regularized, in the year 2007, does also, render the afore stain to acquire aggravated momentum.

However, the afore made submission by the learned Additional Advocate General, cannot be accepted, as, in paragraph 6 of the verdict rendered in

Rakesh Kumar case (supra), this Court had, after rejecting the contention, of, embargo of delay and latches, as, raised therebefore, by the

respondents, for, hence declining relief to the petitioners therein, rather concluded that the afore argument, is, a hypertechnical argument. Further

more, when also the afore verdict has been stated, at the bar, by the learned Additional Advocate General, to, become affirmed by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the year 2015,

(a) thereupon when immediately subsequent thereto, the writ petitioner has instituted the instant petition before this Court,

(b) thereupon, the cumulative effects of the afore rejection of the respondents’ espousal, for, denying to the petitioners therein, the, relief of

regularization, in service, on the ground of delay and laches, is, to be concluded to be also not barring the petitioner herein to claim hence relief alike

the one granted, to, similarly and alike situated employees. Moreover, obviously the cause of action accrued, only, upon dismissal of SLP preferred

against the verdict supra rendered by this Court, hence by the Hon’ble Apex Court, and, not earlier thereto.

Consequently, there is merit in the petition, and, the same is allowed, and, the respondents are directed to in consonance with the afore verdicts, and,

also in consonance with the apposite policy, regularize the petitioner in service, from, the year 2005, with, all consequential benefits. All pending

applications stand disposed of accordingly.