Sh. SomRaj vs State of H.P. and Others

Kurian Joseph, C.J. 1.The petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

i) That the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the app0licant for regularisation as a Chairman w.e.f. 2.4.1997 vide Annexure A-4 i.e. the date from which junior chairmans i.e. the respondents 3 to 5 were regularised as such, by the respondents.

ii) That the respondents may be directed to give all consequential benefits like seniority and arears of salary etc. w.e.f. the date, when the juniors I.e. the respondents 3 to 5 were regularised as Chainman.

In the reply at paragraph 3 (i), and (ii), it is stated as follows:-

Para3 (i) In reply to this para it is submitted that the applicant has rightly been ignored from regularisation as he was appointed as daily wage chainman w.e.f. 26.12.86 and respondent No. 3 to 5 were appointed as daily wage chaimman w.e.f. 8.10.86 , 15.10.86 and 21.10.86 respectively. In accordance with the judgment dated 31.7.95 passed by the Hon''ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 648/90 (Annexure R/ 1) filed by the various chaimnan, respondents No. 3 to 5 were fit for regularisation and due to their eligibility they have rightly been regularised as Chainman. In view this position office order dated 2.4.97 passed by the respondent No.2 is fair just and legal.

(ii) Not admitted. In this connection, it is submitted that the applicant has rightly been ignored as he was junior to the respondents No. 3 to 5 as stated in para3 above, k respondentNo. 3 to 5 were not promoted, but only their services have been regularized on the basis of the seniority

According to the petitioner, since he was appointed as Chainman on 26.12.1986 and in view of his uninterrupted service, he is entitled to the benefit of decision in Mool Raj Upadhayaya vs. State of H.P. for conferment of work charge status or regularization. It is not seen that the matter has been examined in this perspective. As rightly submitted by the learned Deputy Advocate General, regularization will depend upon the availability of vacancy. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of as follows:

There will be a direction to second respondent/competent authority to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of the decision quoted above. Needless to say that he will be conferred the work charge status after completion of 10 years service, in case the regularization is not done before that. It is also made clear that subject to the availability of the vacancy, the regularization shall also be granted to the petitioner. The needful shall be done within four months from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment. The consequential benefits, if any, to which the petitioner is found eligible shall also be disbursed to him within one month thereafter.

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