Ram Chand vs State Of H.P. & Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 1766 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No. 4234 of 2020 Reserved on: 3.3.2021

.

                                                  Date of decision: 6.3.2021





    Ram Chand                                                                ....Petitioner.
                         Versus





    State of H.P. & another                                                ...Respondents.

    Coram:

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

Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.

For the petitioner: Mr. R. L. Chaudhary,

Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Narender Guleria Addl.

A.G. with Vikrant Chandel,

Dy. A.G., for respondent No.1.

Sureshwar Thakur, Judge :

The writ petitioner was initially engaged, on,

a, daily wage basis in the year 1982. However, fictional

breaks, with a malafide intent, are alleged to became,

administered in his service in the afore capacity, under,

the respondents. However, after the year 1994, the writ

petitioner, avers that since then and upto the year 2002,

his rendering in each, of, the afore calendar years, of,

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

service under the respondents, on a daily wage basis

hence 240 days, of, continuous service, whereupon he

claims that in consonance with the relevant norms,

.

carried in the apposite policy, as become formulated, for

the benefit, of, regularization becoming conferred, upon

him, he became entitled to be regularized in service

w.e.f. 1.1.2002.

2.

The merit and vigor of the afore made

espousals are enjoined to be adjudged, from a deep

discernings being made upon the mandays chart

appertaining, to the service on a daily wage basis

becoming rendered by the writ petitioner, under, the

respondents. The apposite mandays chart, becomes

appended with the reply, filed to the writ petition, by the

respondents, and, thereto Annexure R­1 becomes

designated, and, a perusal thereof (i) underscores that

from the year 1994, continuously for a tenure of eight

years commencing therefrom, and, ending in the year

2000, his in each of the afore tenure of eight years,

rather rendering in each of them, 240 days of

continuous service, under, the respondents. However,

the benefit of regularization in service, did not, thereat

become conferred upon the writ petitioner.

.

3. Be that as it may, the respondents became

enjoined to validate their afore inaction to thereat confer

the benefit of regularization in service, upon, the writ

petitioner. The reasons qua therewith, becomes

comprised, in an unchallenged order, made by the

erstwhile Administrative Tribunal, upon, OA(M) No. 130

of 2007, order whereof is appended with the reply, as,

Annexure A­1, (ii) and, perusal whereof, discloses that

directions became meted, upon, the respondents, to

appoint the writ petitioner on a work charge basis, w.e.f.

1.1.2004. The afore order made by the erstwhile

Administrative Tribunal, obviously for want of any

challenge, being meted thereto, acquires conclusivity,

and, it hence bars and estops the writ petitioner to claim

that he prior to its making became entitled to stake a

valid claim for his hitherto service on a daily wage basis,

becoming mutated into regularized employment, under,

the respondents.

4. Even otherwise, the writ petitioner, would

.

become entitled, to even subsequent to the year 2004,

whereat orders supra, became pronounced by the

erstwhile Administrative Tribunal, upon, OA(M) No. 130

of 2007, hence stake a valid claim, for, his being meted

the benefit, of, regularization in service, (i) upon, his

establishing that he thereat, was positioned at an

appropriate reckonable notch, of, seniority, hence in the

seniority list maintained, for the afore purpose, by the

respondents, and, wherethrough, the postponing(s)

therefrom, of, his regularization in service, would

acquire the demerit, of, invalidation. However, the writ

petitioner, has not appended, with the writ petition the

afore apposite seniority list, for, his therefrom

establishing, his occurring thereat, at the apposite

reckonable notch, of, seniority in the seniority list,

hence obviously at a phase earlier than the one whereat,

the, benefit, in/of regularization of service became

conferred, upon, him. In sequel, wants thereof, begets a

conclusion, vis­a­vis, the conferment upon him the

status of regularization, from, his initial engagement on

.

a daily wage basis under the respondents, hence was

made upon valid reckonings being made vis­a­vis, the,

notch of his seniority, as occurred in the apposite

seniority list, hence maintained by the respondents.

5.

In view of the above observations, there is no

merit in the instant writ petition, and, the same is

accordingly dismissed. All pending applications, also

stand disposed of.

                                        (Sureshwar Thakur)
    6th March, 2021                            Judge
        (kck)