Veena vs State of H.P. and Others

V.K. Sharma, J.—The petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:

7 (i). That the Respondents may be directed to consider the case of the applicant for regularization against the post of Office Worker/Clerk w.e.f. May, 1987;

In the reply filed on behalf of the Respondents, the following stand has been taken, vide paras No. 3, 6 (II), 6 (III) and 6 (IV):

The applicant was engaged as a daily wages labourer on Muster Roll w.e.f. May, 1987 to December, 1993 and was paid wages as per prevalent rates. From 21.12.1993 to 7.1.1988 the applicant was engaged as literate mazdoor/complaint attendant and paid accordingly, hence regularised as Peon as per policy of the Govt. for regularization. Letter of offer and appointment annexed as Annexures R-1 and R-II have rightly been issued by the Respondents. It is also added here that no posts of Office Workers were available with the Department.

6 (II). The Petitioner was engaged as daily waged labourer on Muster Roll w.e.f. May, 1987 to 20.7.93 and daily wages rates prevalent was paid. From 21.7.93 to 20.7.95 the Petitioner was paid the rates sanctioned for literate labourer and 21.7.95 to 7.1.98 the applicant was paid the wages of a literate labour/complaint attendant @ 57.95 per day.

6 (III). Admitted to the extent that the applicant worked as literate mazdoor w.e.f. 21.7.93 to 20.7.95 and thereafter 21.7.95 to 7.1.98 was paid the wages of a complaint attendant. It is added that as per policy of the Govt. regarding regularization of daily waged workers in the Department (other than Public Works and Irrigation and Public Health Department) Boards/Corporations/Universities etc. circulated by the Department of Personnel vide their letter No. Per (A)-C-B (2)-2/97 dated 11.12.1997, wherein in sub-para 2 it has been clarified that in case of daily waged/contingent workers who have worked for less than 10 years on a higher pay scales, he/she will be considered for regularization by combining the service both in higher scale and lower scale, but he/she shall be regularized on a lower post for regularization on a higher post, 10 years complete service is essential.

Keeping in view the above clarification, the case of the Petitioner was kept in view at the time of regularization and accordingly she was offered the post of Peon (copy of instructions received from the Department of Personnel to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh is annexed as Annexure R-III. 6 (IV). Admitted to the extent that the Petitioner was offered the post of Peon vide Memo. No. 7803 dated 3.1.98 (Annexure R-1 enclosed) which the applicant readily accepted without any protest/representation and accordingly joined her duty as Peon in the office of Range Officer, Construction Unit, Khalini in compliance to the offer referred to above. In view of joining report of the applicant she was regularized as Peon vide Office Order No. 165/98 dated 2.3.1998 annexed as (Annexure R-II). It is further added that as per Govt. instructions mentioned in reply to para 6 (III) above, she had not fulfilled the conditions for regularization as a Clerk. Moreover, no posts of Clerks were available in the Forest Department for regularization of service. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla vide his Memo. No. Ft. HB (15)-581/94 (E.III) Vol. III dated 22.12.97 annexed as (Annexure R.IV) these posts have been written inadvertently and as such Office Workers were allotted in the category of Peons vide Corrigiendum No. Ft. HB (15)-581/94 Vol. III (E.III) dated 22.12.97 annexed as (Annexure R.V).

In view of the above corrigendum, no posts of the Office Workers were available in the Department, hence nobody was regularized as Office Worker in the Department. As only Class-IV posts were created in the Department.

In view of the above reply, in case the Petitioner has any grievance surviving with regard to the factual and legal aspect of the matter, it will be open to her to approach Respondent No. 2 along with copy of this judgment within one month from today, who shall consider and finally decide the same within another three months after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner, if so desired, in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Gouri Dutt v. State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2008 HP 366, if on factual matrix, the judgment applies to the facts of the present case.

In view of the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.