Dismissed¶34

State of Hp v. Desh Raj

Service Law – Regularization of daily-wage Beldar

Himachal Pradesh HC8 Nov 2024CWP/1246/2016

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP No. 1246 of 2016, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Division Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice and Satyen Vaidya, Judge), decided 8.11.2024 – State of H.P. & ors. v. Desh Raj – regularization of daily wage Beldar; eight years' continuous service; mandays chart Annexure R-1; regularization w.e.f. 1.1.2006 versus 7.8.2007; State's 2000 policy regularizing daily wage employees on completion of eight years subject to vacancy; OA No.11 of 2015 before the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The mandays chart clearly shows that the respondent had completed eight years of continuous service by 2006 and was therefore rightly ordered to be regularized by the Tribunal w.e.f. 1.1.2006. ¶32

State of Hp Vs Desh Raj — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 2024:HHC:11047-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 1246 of 2016.

¶4

Date of decision: 8.11.2024.

¶5

State of H.P. & ors. …..Petitioners.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Desh Raj …..Respondent

¶8

Coram

¶9

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice

¶10

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

¶11

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No

¶12

For the Petitioners : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Addl.A.G, for the respondentsState.

¶13

For the Respondent : Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate, vice Mr.K.B. Khajuria, Advocate.

¶14

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice (oral)

¶15

Heard.

¶16

It is not in dispute that the respondent was engaged as

¶17

a Beldar by the petitioners in December, 1995. The services of the respondent were terminated by the respondents in October, 1998.

¶18

He was re-engaged with seniority in sequel to the directions passed

¶19

by the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal. Since the services of the

¶20

¶21

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes

¶22

2 2024:HHC:11047-DB

¶23

respondent were regularized w.e.f. 7.8.2007, as against his claim for regularization w.e.f. 2006, on completion of eight years, he approached the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal by filing OA No.11 of 2015. The Tribunal, after considering the mandays chart, that was placed on record as Annexure R-1, proceeded to pass the following directions:-

¶24

“4. It is not in dispute that the applicant had worked continuously during the years 1998 to 2005. He has completed 8 years service as per mandays chart Annexure R-1, as prescribed per norms laid down by the Government for regularization.

¶25

5. The applicant was entitled to regularization on completion of 8 years with effect from 1.1.2006. The respondents have ordered regularization of the applicant with effect from 7.8.2007 which is illegal.

¶26

6. Accordingly, the original applicant is allowed and the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the applicant with effect from 1^st January, 2006 with all consequential benefits.”

¶27

It is vehemently argued by Shri Rakesh Dhaulta.

¶28

learned Additional Advocate General that the findings recorded by the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal are perverse, as it has fallen in error in not taking into consideration the fact that the respondent had

¶29

in fact completed eight years service only w.e.f. 7.8.2007 and not

¶30

3 2024:HHC:11047-DB

¶31

prior thereto and, therefore, the petitioners had rightly regularized the services of the respondent on or from that date.

¶32

However, we find no merit in this contention, as the mandays chart clearly shows that the respondent had completed eight years of continuous service by 2006 and has, therefore, been rightly ordered to be regularized by the Tribunal w.e.f.1.1.2006.

¶33

Mr. Dhaulta would then contend that the services of the petitioner were required to be regularized taking into consideration the policy as existed in 2006. However, we find no merit even in this contention given the fact that it was the respondents itself, who had issued the policy prior to that in the year 2000 itself, whereby the services of the daily wage employees were ordered to be regularized on completion of eight years, subject to vacancy.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal dated 9.10.2015 (Annexure P-4). Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶35

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Acting Chief Justice

State of Hp v. Desh Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp v. Desh Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Principal Commissioner GST Vs M/S Gillette India Ltd.

Sunita Verma Vs Hptdcl

Ranjana Sharma Vs Kccb and Others

Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. Vs Union of India and Others

Madan Lal Chauhan and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

State of Hp and Others Vs Ranjha Ram and Others