Himachal Pradesh High Court
_________________________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 25 October, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
( 2024:HHC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No.10250 of 2023
Decided on: 25th October, 2024
_________________________________________________________________
Pramod Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1 Whether approved for reporting?
_________________________________________________________________
For the petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate
General, for respondents No. 1 & 2.
Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate, for
respondents No. 3 & 4.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Petitioner is presently serving as Junior Engineer
on regular basis with respondent No.3-Nagar Panchayat,
Amb, District Una. He is seeking direction to the respondents
to regularize his services as Junior Engineer from
retrospective date i.e. w.e.f. 07.10.1998. This is the date
when petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Engineer
on contract basis with respondent No.4-Nagar Panchayat,
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
-2- ( 2024:HHC
Daulatpur Chowk, District Una, H.P.
2. The case set up by the petitioner is that: -
2(i) Petitioner was appointed against the post of
Junior Engineer on contract basis with respondent No.4 on
07.10.1998. The aforesaid appointment was after following
proper selection process.
2(ii) Respondent No.4, in terms of its decision No.24
dated 17.08.1999, unanimously resolved that as the work of
the petitioner was satisfactory, he should be made permanent
so that work of Nagar Panchayat runs smoothly or the
contract period of the petitioner be extended.
2(iii) Petitioner continued to serve with respondent
No.4. On 28.06.2007, on completion of 8 years of continuous
service, respondents regularized the services of the petitioner
as Junior Engineer.
2(iv) Some similarly situated employees, who were also
initially appointed as Junior Engineer on contract basis in
different Nagar Panchayats and regularized as such later,
were subsequently regularized retrospectively from the back
dates. The regularization was ordered on the basis of
resolutions passed by the concerned Nagar Panchayats.
-3- ( 2024:HHC
2(v) On the analogy of the retrospective regularization
conferred upon some of the Junior Engineers, one Sh. Harsh
Gupta instituted a CWP No. 3877 of 2011. Sh. Harsh Gupta
had been appointed initially on contract basis on 07.09.2001
as Clerk in Nagar Panchayat, Chowari, District Chamba. He
claimed the relief of his retrospective regularization w.e.f.
07.09.2001, the date when he was initially engaged on
contract basis as Clerk. The petition was allowed on
15.09.2014 with direction to the respondents to consider the
case of Sh. Harsh Gupta for regularization, in case a
sanctioned post was available at the time of his initial
appointment on contract basis and in case he was eligible as
per the applicable rules. The operative para of the judgment
reads as under:-
"6. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of by
directing the respondents to consider the case of the
petitioner for regularisation in case there was a
sanctioned post available at that time and in case he
was eligible as per rules. The respondents while
considering the case of the petitioner, will take into
consideration the decision in CWP(T) No. 9988 of 2008
decided on 17th March, 2012 titled as Rajiv Puri vs.
State of H.P. and others and will also take into
consideration the letter dated 2.7.2009 from the
Principal Secretary (UD), to the Director, Urban
-4- ( 2024:HHC
Development, Shimla wherein detailed instructions
have been issued regarding regularisation of contract
employees working in different Urban Local Bodies.
This exercise be completed within a period of three
months from the date of production of a copy of this
judgment along with copy of the writ petition. Pending
application(s), if any, stands disposed of."
The aforesaid decision was implemented by the
respondents. Services of Sh. Harsh Gupta were regularized
w.e.f. 07.09.2001.
2(vi) One Sh. Ghanshyam Sharma, also preferred writ
petition, seeking the same relief. The said writ petition
bearing CWP No.4473 of 2020 was allowed on 09.12.2022
and benefit of retrospective regularization was accorded by
the respondents to Sh. Ghanshyam Sharma as well.
On the basis of aforesaid decisions, petitioner
represented to respondent No.4 on 21.06.2023, seeking his
retrospective regularization w.e.f. the date of his contractual
appointment. The respondents did not take any decision on
his representation. This compelled him to institute this writ
petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
considered the case file.
-5- ( 2024:HHC
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks parity
for the petitioner vis-à-vis other similarly situated Junior
Engineers, who were appointed on contract basis in different
Nagar Panchayats and whose services were later on
regularized retrospectively from the dates of their initial
appointment on contract basis.
Respondent No.4 in its reply has not disputed
having passed resolution No. 24 on 17.08.1999, resolving for
regularization of the services of the petitioner.
Respondents No. 1-3 in their reply have not
disputed retrospective regularization of services of S/Sh.
Harsh Gupta and Ghanshyam Sharma but opposed the writ
petition primarily on the grounds that:- (i) Resolution No. 24,
passed by respondent No.4 on 17.8.1999, concerning
regularization of services of the petitioner, had not been
brought to the notice of the Competent authority i.e.
respondent No.2- the Director Urban Development, Himachal
Pradesh, whereas, services of other similarly situated,
Junior Engineers had been regularized from back dates on
the basis of the resolutions passed by the concerned Nagar
Panchayats; (ii) The other objection taken by the
-6- ( 2024:HHC
respondents is on account of alleged delay and laches on
part of the petitioner in moving the writ petition, seeking
regularization of his services w.e.f. the date of his initial
appointment on contract basis.
4. Consideration
4(i) Petitioner's appointment as Junior Engineer on
contact basis with respondent No.4 on 07.10.1998 is not in
dispute. The fact that he continued to render continuous
service with respondent No.4/3 is also not in dispute.
4(ii) Factum of resolution No.24 having been passed by
respondent No.4 on 17.08.1999 for regularizing the services
of the petitioner is not in dispute, though respondents No.1
and 2 have taken a stand that the aforesaid resolution was
not brought to their notice prior to the filing of the instant
writ petition.
4(iii) Regularization of services of similarly situated
Junior Engineers from the dates of their initial appointments
on contract basis is also not in dispute.
4(iv) Regularization of the services of Sh. Harsh Gupta
w.e.f. 07.09.2001 i.e. the date of his appointment on contract
basis pursuant to the decision dated 15.09.2014 is again an
-7- ( 2024:HHC
admitted position. Similar is the situation in case of another
similarly situated Junior Engineer Sh. Ghanshayam Sharma.
The latter two were initially appointed on contract
basis on 07.09.2001 and 31.05.2001, respectively. Their
services had been regularized. However, pursuant to the
decisions rendered on 15.09.2014 and 09.12.2022,
respectively, their services were retrospectively regularized
w.e.f. dates of appointment on contract basis. Therefore, in
the given facts of the instant case, when the resolution had
already been passed by respondent No.4 on 17.08.1999 for
regularizing services of the petitioner, the delay in moving the
petition cannot be held against him in conferring upon him
regularization from the retrospective date. The petitioner
cannot be discriminated vis-à-vis other similarly situated
employees more so, when the respondents have not only
themselves conferred regularization to the similarly situated
employees from back date but have implemented the afore
said decisions.
4(v) Learned counsel for the respondents have placed
on record orders dated 15.05.1998 and 12.02.2001 indicating
that post of Junior Engineer was available in respondent
-8- ( 2024:HHC
No.4, on the date of appointment of the petitioner as Junior
Engineer on contract basis on 07.10.1998. No other
impediment in regularizing services of the petitioner from the
back date has been pointed out by the respondents.
5. In view of above discussion, this writ petition
succeeds. The respondents are directed to regularize the
services of the petitioner w.e.f. the date of his appointment on
contract basis. This exercise be carried out within a period of
four weeks.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above
terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge
October 25, 2024
R.Atal
