Allowed

Rakesh Dhiman v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC21 Dec 2022CWP/2945/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, condoning a three-day delay in the petitioner's joining due to intervening holidays. The Court treated the date of the appointment letter as the date of joining, directing regularization with consequential benefits based on specific State instructions.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed; date of joining treated as 29th September 2017; delay of three days condoned; respondents directed to regularize services with consequential benefits.

Rakesh Dhiman Vs State of Hp and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No.2945 of 2022. Date of Decision : December 21, 2022

¶4

Rakesh Dhiman …...Petitioner.

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P. & Another …...Respondents

¶7

Coram:

¶8

The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sabina, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶10

For the petitioner : Mr. Aman Parth Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.K. Bhatti, Additional Advocate General.

¶11

Sabina, Judge . (Oral)

¶12

Petitioner has filed the petition under Article 226 of the

¶13

Constitution of India, seeking following relief:-

¶14

“i). In view of the submission made hereinabove it is humbly prayed that present petition may kindly be allowed and respondent may kindly be directed to regularise the service of the petitioners from the due. Further, respondent may kindly be directed to correct the service record of the petitioners, maintain the seniority of the petitioner accordingly and to grant all the consequential benefits to the petitioners from due date.”

¶15

¶16

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶17

¶18

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (Non-Medical) vide order dated 29^th September, 2017. On 30^th September, 2017, it was a holiday on account of Dussehra Festival. 1^st October, 2017 was Sunday and the office was closed. On 2^nd October, 2017, was a gazetted holiday. Consequently, petitioner joined his duties on 3^rd October, 2017. Petitioner had completed three years of requisite service for regularization on 29^th September, 2020. However, respondents were treating the joining of the petitioner as 3^rd October, 2017, whereas, the same was liable to be treated as 29^th September, 2017, the date of issuance of appointment letter. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the instructions issued by the State on 6^th April, 2022 (Copy placed on

¶19

record).

¶20

3.. Learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the date of joining of the petitioner was liable to be taken as 3^rd October, 2017 as petitioner had joined his duties on the said date.

¶21

Instructions dated 6^th April, 2022 placed on record by learned counsel for the petitioner read as under:-

¶22

“ I am directed to invite your attention to the subject cited above and to say that two cut off dates i.e 31^st March and 30^th September have been fixed to consider the eligibility of contract appointees for their regularisation every year.

¶23

¶24

2. The cases are being received frequently for clarification on the point that in case the offer/order of appointment is made/issued on the last working day of the month(s) of March or September and the incumbent is unable to join in the same month after completion of the prescribed formalities due to holidays falling immediately after the last working day in that particular month and joins the services in the next month can his/her services be considered for regularization in the month of April or October on completion of the prescribed length of contract services? In the judgement passed on 26.03.2022 by the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. in CWP No. 5488 of 2020 titled as Gulshan Bhatia and Others Vs State of H.P., it has been directed to condone the period of delay due to holidays or any utmost impediment.

¶25

3. After careful consideration of the matter and also in order to remove the hardships being faced by the individuals due to maximal restriction, which deprives to give joining due to holidays immediately after issuance of appointment order, it has been decided by the Government to condone the period of holidays only in such cases where the offer/order of appointment is made/issued on the last working day of the month of March or September, as the case may be, and holiday(s) fall(s) immediately thereafter, restricting the incumbent to give joining in that particular month of appointment. The date of issuance of offer/order of appointment will be reckoned as cutoff date for their regularisation and such period, and joining time shall be considered as condoned inter-se.

¶26

4. These instructions may be brought to the notice of all concerned for strict compliance and implementation. 5. The above instructions can be seen at www.himachal.nic.in/ personnel.”

¶27

¶28

Thus, in the present case, petitioner was issued the appointment letter on 29^th September, 2017, but admittedly he could not join his duties on 30^th September, 2017 on account of gazetted holiday. Admittedly, 1^st October, 2017 was Sunday and 2^nd October, 2017, was also gazetted holiday. Consequently, in pursuance to the appointment letter issued on 29^th September, 2017, petitioner immediately joined his duties on 3^rd October, 2017, the first working day, after issuance of the appointment letter.

¶29

In similar circumstances, CWP No. 5488 of 2020, had been filed by Gulshan Bhatia and others. Vide order Annexure P-6, learned Single Judge, had disposed of the writ petition by condoning the period of three days inter se 29^th September, 2017 to 2^nd October, 2017 and it was also directed that the respondent-State should ensure that the petitioner may not face any prejudice on account of cut off date mentioned in the Regularization Policy. In compliance of the order Annexure P-6, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.5488 of 2020, instructions dated 6^th April, 2022 have been issued by the State. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be allowed.

¶30

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. It is ordered that the date of joining of the petitioner be treated as 29^th September, 2017 and the delay of three days from the date of issuance of the appointment letter till

¶31

¶32

the date of joining stands condoned. Respondents are, thus, directed to regularize the services of the petitioner, on completion of his three years of service by treating his date of joining as 29^th September, 2017 along with all consequential benefits.

¶33

(Sabina) Judge

¶34

(Sushil Kukreja) Judge

¶35

December 21, 2022 (ps)

Rakesh Dhiman v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Dhiman v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Shubhgiri Industries Vs the Addl. Excise and Taxation Commissioner-Cum-Appellate Authority

Ms Rock Lime Allied Products Vs Addl. Commissioner Excise and Taxation

Ms Goel Crushing Company Vs Addl. Commissioner Excise and Taxation

Manesh Chand Dhir Vs Ms Hypine Carbon Limited

State of Hp and Others Vs B C Gupta

State of Hp and Ors. Vs Ashok Kumar Mahajan