Nek Ram vs Himachal Road Transport ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11784 HP

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
                                              CWPOA No. 4199 of 2019
                                        Decided on: December 30, 2022
     ________________________________________________________




                                                                    .
     Nek Ram                                           .........Petitioner





                                      Versus
     Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another
                                                        ...Respondents
     ________________________________________________________





     Coram
     Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
     Whether approved for reporting1?
     ________________________________________________________
     For the petitioner:     Mr. Leela Nand Sharma, Advocate.





     For the respondents:           Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Advocate.

     ________________________________________________________
     Sandeep Sharma, J. (oral)

r By way of instant petition filed under Art. 226 of the

Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for following main relief(s):

"(i) That the respondents may be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner after completion of 8 years service as

has been done in the case of other similar situate persons.

(ii) That the directions may also be issued to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner as

filed by him and give him the benefit as has been done in

case of others, with all consequential benefits."

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record,

are that on 6.1.1993, petitioner was appointed as Electrician

(Workshop Helper) on daily wage basis in the respondent Corporation.

On 7.2.2007, services of the petitioner were regularized as Petrol

Pump Attendant after having completed 14 years of daily wage. Since

Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? .

his services were required to be regularized after 8 years of daily wage

service, in terms of policy of State of Himachal Pradesh, he filed

.

representation to respondent No.1 on 16.2.2008 (Annexure P-3). Since

respondents failed to take action on the representation filed by the

petitioner, he sent reminder on 22.7.2008, copy of which is annexure

P-4. However, fact remains that no action was taken and petitioner

filed representation dated 25.11.1966 mentioning therein names of

similarly situate persons i.e. Babita, Clerk, Meena, Clerk (Annexure P-

8), Amin Kumar Electrician, (Annexure P-9) who were engaged in 1993

but regularized from retrospective date i.e. after 8 years of daily wage

service. Petitioner by citing said examples, requested respondents to

regularize him from 2001 instead of 2007. Copy of representation

dated 25.11.2008 stands annexed as annexure P-5 with the petition.

Since respondents did not bother to respond to the representation, he

applied for information under Right to Information Act, 2005. Pursuant

to request of the petitioner, Public Information Officer supplied man

days chart and copy of representation filed by Anil Kumar, (Annexures

P-6 and P-7).

3. Perusal of information received under Right to Information

Act, 2005 by petitioner annexure P-6 reads as under

"YEAR WISE DETAILS OF WORKING DAYS DURING DAILY WAGES PERIOD OF SH. NEK RAM, ELECTRICIAN, WORKED IN CIVIL CELL, SHMLA-DIVISION Sr. No. Year total working days

1. 1993 348

2. 1994 364

.

               11.       2003          243 (shifted to work





                                       under the control of
                                       DDM,            D.W.
                                       Taradevi vide office
                                       order No. DM(N)
                                       Bldg. Civil Cell-





                                       Staff/2001-5339-41,
                                       dated 25-08-2003)



        4.

Careful perusal of aforesaid information reveals that the

petitioner had been working since 1993 with the respondent

continuously and during this period he worked for more than 240 days

in each calendar year. In 2003, petitioner after having completed 240

days was shifted to work under DDM D.W. Tara Devi vide office order

dated 25.8.2003. In the aforesaid background, petitioner approached

this court for grant of reliefs, as have been reproduced herein above.

5. Pursuant to notice issued in the instant proceedings,

respondents have filed reply, wherein, facts as have been noticed

herein above, are not in dispute but respondents have stated in reply

that initially petitioner worked with it on the basis of requirement of work

and not on daily wage basis, however, said assertion is contrary to the

record. Man days chart as taken note above, reveals that the petitioner

had been serving since 1993 with the respondent in daily wage

capacity and till his regularization in the year 2007, he rendered service

of more than 240 days in each calendar year and there is no mention if

.

an in the man days charge that the petitioner was being engaged on

requirement basis. Otherwise also, it is not understood, if the petitioner

was being engaged on requirement basis, how his services could be

subsequently regularized in 2007 because, in terms of policy framed by

Government of Himachal Pradesh for regularization, services of

persons, having completed 8 years on daily wage basis, could only be

regularized.

6.

In the instant case, it is not in dispute that petitioner after

completed 14 years has been regularized and as of today, he is

working in HRTC office Solan. Careful perusal Annexures P-8 and P-9,

regularization orders of Babita and Meena, Clerks and Anil Kuma

Electrician, clearly reveals that their services were regularized after 8

years of daily wage service and as such, there is no occasion, if any,

for the respondent Corporation to discriminate with the petitioner, who

also completed his eight year daily wage service in the year 2001.

7. Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Advocate has not been able to dispute

the factum with regard to correctness of man days chart placed on

record, perusal whereof reveals that petitioner was appointed on daily

wag basis in 1993 and till the year 2003, he had been working regularly

on daily wage basis with 240 days in each calendar year. If it is so, his

services were required to be regularized with effect from 1.1.2001,

when he completed eight years of daily wage service.

.

8. Consequently, in view of above, ,this court finds merit in the

petition and same is allowed and action of the respondents in

regularizing the services of the petitioner with effect from 2007 is held

to be bad and respondents are directed to regularize services of the

petitioner from 1.1.2001, when petitioner completed 8 years on daily

wage basis alongwith all consequential benefits.

9.

Since, the petitioner has been fighting for his rightful claim for

many years, this court hopes and trusts that the needful shall be done

by the respondent Corporation expeditiously, preferably within a

period of eight weeks, failing respondent would be liable to pay interest

at the rate of 9% per annum on the arrears..

10. The petition stands disposed of in the afore terms, alongwith

all pending applications.

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

December 30, 2022 (Vikrant)