Balwan Singh Pathania vs Coram
2021 Latest Caselaw 1686 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

CWPOA No. 7987 of 2019

.

Reserved on: 25.2.2021

Decided on 5.3.2021

Balwan Singh Pathania ....Petitioner.

Versus

State of H.P. & others

Coram:

r to The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.

...Respondents.

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the petitioner: Onkar Jairath, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Hemant Vaid & Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Addl. A.Gs. with Mr.

Narender Guleria & Mr. Vikrant Chandel Dy. A.G.

Sureshwar Thakur, J :

The admitted facts, as exist on the record, of

this case, display, that the writ petitioner was initially

engaged, as, a Clerk on daily need basis, on 5.9.1997, and,

upon his service becoming terminated, on 19.11.2003, he

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

in pursuance to a verdict, as, embodied respectively, in,

Annexure P­1, and, in Annexure P­2, became reinstated in

.

service, though without loosing his seniority, yet, without

pecuniary benefits becoming bestowed upon him.

2. The relief canvassed in the extant writ petition,

is confined to the respondents, being meted, a, mandamus,

for regularizing him in service, and, the afore espousal, is

anchored upon one Jagdeep Singh, an employee similarly

situate to the writ petitioner, becoming conferred, the,

benefit of regularization in service.

3. Be that as it may, the merit of the afore, is to be

adjudged from the stand point, whether the afore

canvassed parity, is, borne out from the records of the

case. However, a perusal of, the, uncontroverted reply,

meted to the writ petition, by the respondents, rather

reveals, that the afore Jagdeep Singh, belongs not to a

category of employees wheretowhich, the petitioner

belongs, and, also with revelation being cast in the reply

affidavit, sworn by an officer, of the respondents, that he

has been issued, a, show cause notice, for withdrawal of

the benefit, of, regularization, in service becoming

conferred upon him, (i) given the apposite policy,

.

articulating that the benefits of regularization in service,

rather being conferred, in, consonance with seniority.

Significantly, since the writ petitioner, has not challenged,

the validity or the vires, of, the afore policy, hence making

contemplations that the benefit of regularization in service,

being conferable upon him, or, upon alike with him

employees, upon, anvil, of, the apposite seniority being

kept in mind, (ii) and, also when no material has been

placed on record, by the writ petitioner, that his notch or

place in the seniority, entitles him nowat to the benefit of

regularization, in service, (iii) thereupon for want of the

afore material, before this Court, constrains this Court to

decline the espoused relief to the petitioner. However, if in

consonance with the policy formulated by the respondents,

for regularizing the service(s) of the writ petitioner, he is

entitled thereto, he be forthwith conferred the benefit, of,

regularization in service.

3. In view of the afore observations, the writ

petition is allowed, with all incidental and consequential

.

therewith benefits. All pending applications, if any, also

stand disposed of.

                                         (Sureshwar Thakur)
                                              Judge

                                 (Chander Bhusan Barowalia)




    5.3.2021                             Judge
      (kck)       r