Leela Devi vs The Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya and Others

V.K. Sharma, J.—The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs vide para 7(i) to (iii):

(i) That the Respondent University may be directed to consider the case of the applicant for regularization as a Steno-Typist w.e.f 1.4.1995 forthwith.

(ii) That the Respondent University may be directed to consider the case of the applicant as a Steno-Typist w.e.f 1.1.1998 or w.e.f 1.4.1998 as per the policy of regularization vide Annexures A-25 and A-27 forthwith.

(iii) That if relief (i) & (ii) are inadmissible on merits, then, the Respondent University may be directed to consider the case of the applicant for regularization as a labourer/beldar w.e.f 1.4.1995 or alternatively w.e.f 1.1.1998/1.4.1998 with all consequential benefits like seniority and back wages forthwith.

In reply on behalf of the Respondents, the following averments have been set up vide paras 3 and 6(v) & (vi):

Reply to order:

(i) That Smt. Lela Devi applicant was engaged as daily paid labourer in the Regional Research Station Dhaulakuan/Krishi Vigyan Kendra Dhaulakuan of the Respondent University and she worked as such w.e.f 17.6.1983. She has now been regularized as Beldar vide Respondent University''s office order No. 9-917/95/HPKV(Estt.)/Vol.III/73539-54 dated 20.10.1999, as per Annexure R-1. She has accordingly joined her duties as Beldar on 1.11.1991. The applicant did not perform the duties of Steno-Typist notwithstanding the fact that she was paid wages of steno-typist w.e.f. 18.11.1992 as per inter orders of Hon''ble High Court. The writ petition filed by the applicant before Hon''ble High Court has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

(ii) That the applicant was never engaged as steno-typist for doing stenography work, the Respondent university had posted a regular steno in aforesaid offices.

6(v) & (vi) That the contents of sub-para (v)&(vi) of para 6 are admitted to the extent that the applicant worked as daily paid labourer in Regional Research Station Dhaulakuan w.e.f 17.6.1983 to March, 1986 thereafter she was transferred to Krishi Vigyan Kendra Dhaulakuan as daily paid labourer. The applicant was never engaged as daily paid steno-typist. The Scientist incharge Krishi Vigyan Kendra Dhaulakuan is neither competent to engage the applicant as steno-typist nor can he issue experience certificate according to university statute. The competent officer to engage daily paid/clerks/stenos is the Registrar of the Respondent university. The Respondent university had posted regular clerks and stenos in the Krishi Vigyan Kendra of the Respondent university for doing ministerial and stenography work. According to university statute the posts of stenographers falls under direct recruitment quota. So the applicant is free to compete for the said post as and when these are advertised for regular appointment.

The learned Counsel for the parties submit at the very outset that the Petitioner has since been regularized as beldar. However, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that though she was initially engaged as daily wage beldar, but she worked as Steno-Typist as per Annexure A-4 to A-19 and A-27 and she continued to perform such duties till her regularization. As such she was entitled for regularization on the post of Steno-Typist against which she has been working throughout. To controvert this submission the learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that once the Petitioner has accepted the initial engagement as daily wage beldar followed by subsequent regularization, she is estopped from claiming regularization on a higher post. However, according to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner there can be no estoppel against law as held by the Hon''ble Apex Court in State of H.P. and Others Vs. Gehar Singh,

Be that as it may, in view of factual position obtaining as above, in case the Petitioner still has any surviving grievance, it will be open to her to approach the first Respondent along with certified copy of this judgment within one month, in which case the said Respondent will look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law and justice after giving personal hearing to the Petitioner and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed within next three months. While considering the matter and taking decision thereon, the Respondent shall take due note of the pronouncements of law rendered on the subject by this Court in CWP(T) No, 6861 of 2008, Smt. Parvati Rana v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. CWP(T) No. 14298 of 2008, Himender Kumar v. Sate of H.P and Ors. and State of H.P. v. Gauri Dutt and Ors. (2008) 1 HLJ 366. Needless to say that in case the Petitioner is found entitled for any relief in the light of this judgment, consequential benefits shall follow as per law.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of so also the pending application(s), if any.