Sanjay Kumar Vs H.P State Pollution Control Board

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

CWPOA No. 7230 of 2020

Decided on: 9^th May, 2024

Sanjay Kumar	.... Versus	...Petitioner
Himachal Pradesh another.	State Pollution Control ...	Board and Respondents

¶5

Coram

¶6

*The Hon’ble Mr. Justice*	*Tarlok Singh Chauhan,*	*Judge.*
*The Hon’ble Mr. Justice* *Whether approved for re*	*Sushil Kukreja, Judge.* *porting?¹No.*
For the petitioner:	Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, vice Mr. Naresh K. Advocate.	Advocate Sharma,
For the respondents:	Mr. Virbahadur Advocate.	Verma,

¶7

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

¶8

The instant petition has been filed for the grant of

¶9

following reliefs:-

¶10

“i) That the impugned order dated 27.03.2019 (Annexure A- 5), may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶11

ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the present application immediately after completion of 8 years service i.e. w.e.f. 26.09.204 with all consequential benefits as per 8 years regularization policy of the State Government (Annexure A-2) as well as the judgment dated 24.09.2014 in CWP

¶12

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

¶13

2

¶14

No. 7140/2012, titled as Gian Singh v/s State of H.P. (Annexure A-6).”

¶15

The disputed facts are that the petitioner was engaged as daily waged Clerk on 25^th September, 1996 and accordingly his services were required to be regularized on completion of eight years of continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year, in terms of policy issued by the State Government on 3^rd April, 2000 (Annexure A-2). Accordingly, the petitioner had been working continuously since the date of appointment, but the respondents have not extended the benefit of regularization up-till 09.10.2007, by which time, the petitioner had rendered 11 years of service.

¶16

For long and short of the case, the petitioner has approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No.7416 of 2018, claiming his regularization, in terms of judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 titled as Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. decided on 28^th July, 2010.

¶17

The learned Tribunal disposed of the petition by directing the respondents/competent authority to examine the case of the petitioner and in case he is found covered by the

¶18

3

¶19

judgment, then, same and similar benefits be extended to the petitioner, as were extended in Rakesh Kumar’s case.

¶20

The Chairman of the respondent-Board has considered the representation of the petitioner but rejected the same by recording the following reasons:-

¶21

“B) The State Board follows H. P. State Govt. Policy for regularization of its employees which have prospective effect.

¶22

That the policy for regularization was issued by the State Govt. on 09.06.2006 wherein it was mentioned that daily wage workers who have completed 8 years of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year as on 31.03.2004 may be regularized against vacant post with prospective effect. But Sh. Sanjay Kumar had not completed 8 years on cutoff date of 31.03.2004, therefore not covered under said policy.

¶23

Thereafter, on 18.06.2007, State Govt. again issued another Policy, wherein it was mentioned that daily wage workers who have completed 8 years of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year as on 31.03.2006 may be regularized against vacant post with prospective effect. On such date Sh. Sanjay Kumar had completed more 8 years and the cutoff date was 31.03.2006, so he was immediately regularized on 09.10.2007 with prospective effect as per policy of the State Govt. dated 18.06.2007.

¶24

The State Board is not a work-charged organization and wages/salary of the petitioner was charged to the establishment of the State Board as per other regular employees of the Board. As such Sh. Sanjay Kumar (Peon) is not a similarly situated person.

¶25

Hence, in view of above position, petitioner is not entitled to work-charge status nor any consequential relief as claimed. The State Board had regularized the petitioner in accordance with prevalent Regularization

¶26

4

¶27

Policy. With these observations the matter is disposed off.

¶28

It would be noticed that the sole ground on which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected was that in terms of policy for regularization issued by the State Government on 09.06.2006, the petitioner had not completed eight years of service on the cutoff date i.e. 31.03.2006. Therefore, his case was not covered under the aforesaid policy and further reasons assigned that even though the policy was subsequently issued on 18.06.2007, however, it was mentioned therein that the daily wage workers who have completed eight years of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year as on 31.03.2006 may be regularized against the vacant post with prospective effect. It was on the basis of such policy that the services of the petitioner came to be regularized w.e.f. 09.10.2007 with prospective effect, as per policy of the State Government dated 18.06.2007.

¶29

It is not in dispute that the petitioner had completed eight years of daily wage service with minimum of 240 years in each calendar year as on 26.09.2004. However, the moot question which arises for consideration is whether the services of the petitioner could have been regularized only w.e.f. 09.10.2007, however, the same were required to be

¶30

5

¶31

regularized on completion of eight years of service i.e., immediately after 26.06.2004.

¶32

The only basis on which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected is on account of policy of 2007, which obviously was in continuation to the earlier policies issued by the State Government from time to time. Once the policy of 2007 was in continuation to the policy of 2006, the operation thereof could not have been illegally deferred by the respondents. This course was clearly not permissible as the Notifications issued by the Government in the year 2007 were essentially required to be considered in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 2415 of 2012 titled as Mathu Ram vs. Municipal Corporation and others , decided on 31.07.2014, which has been affirmed uptill the Hon’ble Apex Court.

¶33

Obviously, in such circumstances, the respondents were required to consider the case of the petitioner immediately on his having completed eight years of continuous service with minimum of 240 days in each calendar year. Once there is no dispute that the post was available then, his services ought to have been regularized from the said date.

¶34

6

¶35

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed and order dated 27.03.2019, rejecting the claim of the petitioner is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner, immediately on completion of eight years of service on and w.e.f. 26.09.2004 with all consequential benefits except monitory benefits, which shall be admissible to the petitioner three years prior to the filing of the Original Application No. 7416 of 2018.

¶36

The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any.

¶37

May 09, 2024 ( Sushil Kukreja ) (naveen) Judge

¶38

(naveen)

Sanjay Kumar v. H.P State Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar v. H.P State Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hans Raj Vs Hrtc and Another

Cskhpkv Palampur Vs Bhim Singh

Bhagwant Kishore Vs Hrtc and Ors.

Cskhpkv Palampur Vs Rakesh Singh

Om Prakash Vs State of Hp and Ors.

State of Hp Vs Roshani Devi