The court dismissed a writ petition for regularization of two petitioners employed since 1994 in the respondent board as T-Mates, holding that no discrimination existed regarding their regularization status compared to another individual appointed as a Helper (Store).
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP(T) No. 9410 of 2008. Decided on: 16th December, 2010.
Ashok Kumar and another.
…Petitioners.
-Versus-
H.P. State Electricity Board and Others.
…Respondents.
Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
____________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Harish Dod, Advocate vice Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 to 3. : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate. For respondent No. 4. : Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) :
Case of the petitioners, in a nut-shell, is that they should have been regularized as Helper (Store) w.e.f. 06.11.2002. Petitioner No. 1 was engaged on daily wage basis as Beldar on 02.04.1994 and petitioner No. 2 was engaged on daily wage basis on 01.07.1994. They have been appointed as T- Mates (work charged) and have joined their duties in the office of respondent No. 3. It has come in the reply that respondent No. 4 was appointed as Helper (Store) vide muster-roll No. 55. Since respondent No. 4 was appointed as Helper (Store), he has rightly been regularized as Helper (Store). In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioners have been discriminated against.
(Rajiv Sharma) Judge
November 16, 2010. (bhupender)
1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners were discriminated against by not being regularized as Helper (Store) compared to respondent No. 4.
Whether the writ petition for regularization as Helper (Store) from the date of engagement has merit.
Whether the appointment of petitioners as T-Mates justifies denying them regularization as compared to a respondent appointed as Helper (Store).
Ashok Kumar
Another
H.P. State Electricity Board
Others
Rajiv Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
