Umesh Kumar Sharma vs State of H.P. and Another

Surinder Singh, J.—In the instant petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:

(i). That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the applicant as Clerk from the initial date of appointment i.e. 28.6.1994 on which date, the applicant was appointed and has worked on the post of Clerk; and

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to give the status of Clerk to the applicant w.e.f. 28.6.1994 i.e. on which date, the applicant was initially appointed.

As a matter of fact, the petitioner was engaged as a daily waged Beldar w.e.f. 28.6.1994 in Municipal Council, Solan. There were two posts of Clerk lying vacant in the Municipal Council, Solan. Vide Resolution No. 1082 dated 30.12.1999, the Council recommended the names of four employees to be engaged on contract basis. Thereafter, amongst them Kuldeep Gupta and Tej Ram Sharma, were engaged on contract. On receiving the recommendation, respondent No. 3 the Director, Urban Development of the Government of Himachal Pradesh conveyed the approval of the Government, for regularization of the concerned officials, those who were posted against the vacant posts in order of their seniority. The petitioner herein assailed this order before the Erstwhile Tribunal by filing an O.A. No. 3281 of 2000. When the said Original Application was pending in the Tribunal, Kuldeep Gupta and Tej Ram Sharma aforesaid were regularized. But however, the order of their regularization was set-aside by the Tribunal vide its order dated 27.2.2003 and the direction was issued to the respondents i.e. the Municipal Council, Solan, The Executive Officer and The Director, Urban Development, Government of Himachal Pradesh to consider the case of the petitioner herein against the available vacancy in accordance with the seniority to be taken from the date of engagement of the applicant as a daily waged Clerk in the Municipal Council, Solan with a time bound direction for its compliance.

The judicial review of the impugned order was sought by Kuldeep Gupta and Tej Ram Sharma, by filing CWP Nos. 186 and 187 of 2003, respectively. Both these writ petitions were taken on 18.12.2008 by the Division Bench of this Court and then stated at Bar that after the passing of the impugned order by the Tribunal, i.e. 27th February, 2003, the services of Kuldeep Gupta and Tej Ram Sharma were regularized, but they had only grievance about the date of their regularization, as they were entitled to be regularized from the date, earlier in point of time, than the date from which their services were regularized, thus, they were permitted to withdraw their petitions, with liberty to make representations to the concerned authorities to seek regularization of their services from the date, they were entitled and further liberty was reserved to them to file their petitions, in case their representations are not decided to their satisfaction.

In the instant case, though the petitioner has been regularized, but according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, said Kuldeep Gupta and Tej Ram Sharma were appointed in the year 1998 that too on contract basis and were ordered to be regularized from the year 2000, which order was quashed by the erstwhile Tribunal, but despite that, they were regularized with retrospective effect from the same year vide Office Order No. UD-H(A)(1)-14/94-IV-13177-81 dated 12th October, 2009, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to be considered for regularization earlier to the aforesaid employees.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner feels satisfied in case the present petition is treated as representation by the respondent No. 1 to consider his plea in view of the office order dated 12.10.2009 referred to above.

In view of this, the instant petition is disposed of on the following terms:

The petitioner shall file his representation within a period of two weeks to the respondent No. 1 alongwith copy of the present petition and annexures and copy of the judgment now passed by this Court and respondent No. 1 shall take a decision there upon within a period of two weeks thereafter.

In case the petitioner feel dissatisfied by the order of respondent No. 1, he is at liberty to seek appropriate redressal by filing a fresh petition.

It is also made clear that the respondent No. 1 shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before deciding his representation.

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.

Order Dasti to Parties.