Achhro vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Sureshwar Thakur, J

The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner one Jarmo was engaged on a daily rated basis by the respondents in the year 1988. Though, he was

required to complete 240 days of continuous service in each of the apposite 10 calendar years hence commencing from 1988, rather under the

respondents. However, it is not disputed, inter-se, the contesting litigants, that in the calendar year 1992, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner

rather worked only for 229 days.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended with much vigor before this Court, that the afore deficit, in the number of days of continuous

service, as, occurred in the calendar year 1992, is to be condoned, as in the afore phase, he was sick and ailing. The learned counsel for the petitioner

further argues that upon, the afore deficit, in the, number of days in the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, hence completing 240 days of

continuous service, in the afore calendar year, as a daily rated workman, under the respondents, rather becoming condoned, he would become entitled

to be meted the benefit of regularization in service after 10 years from 1988, in as much, as, in the year 1998.

However, the afore-made address, before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be accepted, as the afore condonation of

delay, as became generated from the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, becoming purportedly beset with a medical ailment hence leading to his

hospitalization, and, as becomes reflected through Annexure A-1, is rested or carried in the apposite photocopy borne in Annexure A-1 .

Since Annexure A-1 is a photocopy of the original, it was required to be proven during the lifetime of the predecessor-in-interest of the writ

petitioner, through the latter raising an industrial dispute in respect thereof, and, the appropriate Government referring the same for an adjudication

being meted thereon(s) by the Labour Court-cum-industrial Tribunal. The afore endeavour remained un-recoursed by the predecessor-in-interest of

the petitioner rather during the latter’s life time. Conspicuously, also when the apposite name and parentage in Annexure A-1 is not legible,

therefore, no reliance can be placed thereon. Therefore, reiteratedly, this Court deems it fit to not condone the period of abstention from duties for, 11

days of the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioner, and which hence precluded him to complete 240 days of continuous service in the calendar

year 1992.

The respondents in their reply meted to the writ petition, contended that the predecessor-in-interest, of the writ petitioner, became conferred the

benefit of regularization, in service w.e.f 1.1.2003, the apposite order in respect thereof is embodied in R-III, as becomes appended with the reply as

made to the writ petition. Moreover, it is also contended in the reply, that all the post retiral benefits as were required to be bestowed upon the

predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, were bestowed upon him, through Annexure R-IV, as becomes appended, with the reply furnished to the writ

petition.

It appears that the afore made address by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is to ensure hers being granted, the benefits of pension, which

otherwise was not grantable either during the life time of her predecessor-in-interest nor are grantable to her as her predecessor-in-interest, rather had

rendered only 6 years 11 months of regular service, whereas, for both her and the writ petitioner being respectively entitled to apposite pensionary

benefits, there occur a mandate, in the pension rules concerned, that the employee concerned, rather mandatorily rendering 10 years of regular service

under the employer concerned. Since the afore mandatory provisions carried in the apposite pension rules remained un-complied with by the

predecessor-in-interest, of the petitioner, given his becoming regularized in the year 2003, and, reiteratedly since he did not complete the afore

mandatory regular period of service. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the petition, and, the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications

stand disposed of accordingly.