Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 03.10.2024 vs Dharam Chand Now Deceased Through His on 3 October, 2024
2024:HHC:9664
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.1655 of 2021
Decided on: 03.10.2024
State of H.P. & others ...Petitioners
Versus
Dharam Chand now deceased through his
L.Rs Matho Devi ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher, Chief Justice
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioners: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with
Ms.Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advo-
cate General.
For the respondent: Mr. C.N. Singh, Mr. Devender Sharma and
Mr. Anshul Gandhi, Advocates.
Rajiv Shakdher, Chief Justice (Oral)
1. This petition is directed against the order dated
12.04.2018, passed by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tri-
bunal [hereafter referred to as the "Tribunal"]. For convenience,
the operative directions issued by the Tribunal are extracted be-
low:
"4. The learned vice counsel for the applicant
submits at the very outset that the case of the appli-
cant is squarely covered under judgment dated
23.04.2015, Annexure A-4, rendered by the Hon'ble
High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 1044
of 2015, Jai Singh Versus State of Himachal
Pradesh & ors. and order dated 28th November,
2017, Annexure A 5, passed by this Tribunal in O.A.
No. 2766 of 2015, Sh. Lekh Raj Versus State of
Himachal Pradesh and others.
5. The learned Deputy Advocate General states
that subject to verification of records, if it is found
that the applicant is similarly situate as the peti-
tioner/applicant in the aforesaid judgment/order,
his case shall also be considered accordingly."
2. Concededly, the petitioners have not passed any or-
der in terms of the directions issued by the Tribunal. Instead,
they have approached this Court by way of the instant writ peti-
tion after a delay of nearly 2 ½ years.
3. Mr Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General, who ap-
pears on behalf of the petitioners, submits that even before the
respondent approached the Tribunal, he had been accorded relief
in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mool Raj
Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P., 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316.
3.1 In support of this plea, our attention has been drawn
by Mr Rattan to the office order dated 20.03.2008.
3.2 A perusal of the said order shows that insofar as the re-
spondent was concerned, he had been granted retrospective regu-
larization from 01.01.2003. It is, thus, the submission of the peti-
tioners that the respondent cannot now wake up and seek regu-
larization w.e.f. 01.01.2001.
4. The record shows that the respondent was engaged
as a daily wage worker on 09.11.1992. He joined the regular post
on 16.01.2007.
4.1 Concededly, the respondent was given retrospective reg-
ularization from 01.01.2003. As noticed above, the regularization
was made effective from 01.01.2003 in terms of the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case.
5. At that stage, the regularization policy of the petitioners
prescribed 10 years of service with a minimum period of 240
days of work in each year.
5.1 There can be no cavil with the fact that in the year
2000, a policy change took place, whereby the above-mentioned
qualifying period was reduced to 8 years. It is in this context
that the respondent sought regularization w.e.f. 01.01.2001.
6. The Tribunal rightly noticed the judgment of the coor-
dinate bench of this Court in CWP No.1044 of 2015, titled Jai
Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. dated 23.04.2015,
and its own order dated 28.11.2017, passed in OA No.2766 of
2015, titled Sh. Lekh Raj vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and
others.
7. It is not in dispute that the Special Leave Petition
(SLP) preferred qua Jai Singh's case, i.e., SLP(C) 10712/2016,
titled State of H.P. & others vs. Jai Singh was dismissed via the
order dated 21.04.2017.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not dis-
pute that the judgment in Lek Raj's case was implemented. We
may also note another judgment on a similar issue i.e., LPA
No.19 of 2023, titled State of H.P. vs. Nek Rak & others,
wherein a Beldar, appointed in 1993, was accorded the same re-
lief via the judgment dated 10.03.2023. The SLP(C)
No.36702/2023 preferred in Nek Ram's case was dismissed on
05.01.2024.
9. Given this position, we are of the view that the argu-
ment qua delay does not hold water. The petitioners were di-
rected by the Tribunal only to pass an order in terms of the judg-
ment in Jai Singh's case and the Tribunal's own order in Lek
Raj's case. The petitioners sat over it and approached this Court
after nearly 2 ½ years.
10. In the ordinary course, we would have directed the peti-
tioners to pass an order in terms of the judgment of the Tribunal.
However, having regard to the state of law and the delay in-
volved, we are inclined to hold that the respondent should be
regularized w.e.f. 01.01.2001.
11. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
( Rajiv Shakdher )
Chief Justice
( Satyen Vaidya )
Judge
October 03, 2024
(vt)
