Ramesh Chand vs State Of H. P

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

The petitioner seeks regularization of his services on completion of five years on contract basis, that is, w.e.f. 1.11.2013 with all consequential benefits.

The petitioner was appointed as Junior Draughtsman in the respondent-department on contract basis on 01.10.2008. His services were regularized by the respondent-department on 04.01.2016. The grievance of the petitioner is that his services were required to be regularized on completion of five years of contractual services.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the prayer for regularization of petitioner's services w.e.f. 01.11.2013 has placed reliance upon a notification issued by the State Government on 07.05.2015. This notification pertains to the regularization of contract appointees in the Government Departments. The notification conveys the decision of the Government to regularize the services of contractual appointees after completion of five years' service as on 31.01.2015 subject to fulfillment of codal formalities.

It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had completed five years of contractual service as on 01.10.2013. He was appointed against a vacancy, therefore, was required to be regularized in terms of the notification dated 07.05.2015 on completion of five years of contractual service. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon an office order dated 23.06.2015, whereunder, services of several contractual appointees, working in the respondent-department were regularized on completion of five years of contractual service.

In opposition, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that, though the petitioner had completed five years of contractual service by the year, 2015, however, he could not be regularized alongwith other similarly situated employees in the respondent-department for the reason that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Junior Draughtsman had not been finalized.

Annexure R-2 dated 03.09.2015 states that the proposed the R&P Rules for the post of Junior Draughtsman were sent by the respondent-department to the State Government on 17.05.2008 for its approval. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Draughtsman against the post meant for the persons with disability in the month of October, 2008 under the proposed R&P Rules. The R&P Rules were not finalized by the State Government and were returned on 26.11.2008 with the observation that when the posts of Junior Draughtsman were not be continued after the retirement of the incumbents, then there was no justification to frame R&P Rules for the said posts. The communication dated 03.09.2015 further states that the department had again sent the proposed R&P Rules for the approval of the State Government on 18.06.2015, which were returned by the State on 13.08.2015.

From the documents on record, it appears that irrespective of framing/finalizing of R&P Rules for the post of Junior Draughtsman, the Government on 28.12.2015 conveyed its approval to the respondent-department for regularizing the services of the petitioner against the post of Junior Draughtsman being a "different case having separate ratio and circumstances". Pursuant to this approval, the services of the petitioner were regularized on 04.01.2016.

In light of the facts noticed above, I am of the considered view that the respondents need to examine the case of the petitioner afresh for his regularization on completion of five years contractual service for the following reasons:-

5(i) The notification dated 07.05.2015 (Annexure R-1) is with respect to regularizing the services of the contractual appointees on completion of five years of service as on 31.03.2015.

5(ii) The respondents have regularized the services of various contractual appointees in the respondent-department on their completion of five years of contractual services (Annexure A-3).

5(iii) The petitioner completed five years of contractual services as Junior Draughtsman on 01.10.2013. His case was not considered by the respondents for regularization w.e.f. 01.11.2013 on the ground that R&P Rules for the post concerned had not been finalized. However, the documents on record show that R&P Rules for the post in question had already been proposed and were sent to the State Government for its approval on 17.05.2008. In fact, the petitioner was appointed under the draft R&P Rules. For one reason or the other, the draft R&P Rules have not been finalized.

5(iv) On the recommendation of the respondent-department dated 03.09.2015, the State Government on 28.12.2015 conveyed its approval for regularizing the petitioner's services being different case ' having separate ratio and circumstances' , i.e. having been appointed as a person with disability against the reserved post meant for the category. It is not in dispute that even on 28.12.2015, the R&P Rules had not been finalized. If the respondents could regularize the petitioner on 04.01.2016, then he could have also been considered for regularization on 01.11.2013 i.e. when he completed five years of contractual service. The position of R&P Rules as it was in the year 2013 continued to remain the same in the year 2016.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for the foregoing reasons, the respondent/Competent Authority is directed to re-examine the case of the petitioner for his regularization on completion of five years contractual service in light of the above observations and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today.

The present writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.