Ashwani Kumar Vs Cskhpkv

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the petitioner: Mr. R.S. Gautam and Mr. Arun Rana, Advocates.

¶10

For the respondent:

¶11

Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate.

¶12

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

¶13

The petitioner by way of present petition, has

¶14

prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

¶15

“(1) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and the impugned regularization Oder dated 02.01.2019 (Annexure P-14) be modified and the respondent may kindly be directed to regularize the service of the petitioner w.e.f. in the year 2000 in terms of Policy adopted by the respondent university with all consequential benefits or in altenative respondent may kindly be directed to treat the petitioner as appointee prior to 15-05-2003 which is pension cut-off date and the count the Adhoc service rendered for the purpose of pension with all consequential Benefits.

¶16

(2) That the respondent university may kindly be directed to release the pension in favour of petitioner with interest.”

¶17

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

¶18

2

¶19

The facts, which emerge from the pleadings, are

¶20

that the petitioner was initially engaged as Daily Paid Labourer in the Estate Organization of the respondentUniversity w.e.f. 21.04.1991 to 20.08.1992. Thereafter, he has performed his duties as Daily Paid Chowkidar w.e.f. 21.08.1992 to 20.12.1994 and lastly before issuance of office order dated 07.05.2003 (Annexure P-6), he has worked as Work Supervisor continuously w.e.f. 01.08.2001 to 06.05.2003. As per office order dated 07.05.2003 (Annexure P-6), the petitioner was appointed as Audio System Operator in the pay scale of Rs.3120-100-3220-110-3660-120-4260-140-4400-1505000-160-5160 plus allowances as admissible from time to time in the respondent-University on ad-hoc basis for a period of six months in the first instance or till regular arrangement is made, whichever is earlier from the date he reports his duty to the Estate Officer. It is not in dispute that the petitioner in sequel to the said order had joined his duty as Audio System

¶21

Operator. Since the petitioner was not fulfilling the requisite qualification as per R & P Rules for the post of Auto System

¶22

3

¶23

Operator notified by the respondent-University vide Notification dated 25.09.2002, his services were not regularized. The petitioner was offered the post of Field Assistant, but he did not give his consent and preferred a representation dated 18.07.2013 followed by another representation dated 13.03.2014 for regularization of his services to the post of Audio System Operator. When the respondent-University did not decide the representation, he approached this Court by filing CWP No.7759 of 2014 wherein this Court had given direction to decide the representation made by the petitioner as per the Rules occupying the field. Since the petitioner was not fulfilling the requisite qualification, his representation came to be rejected on 02.12.2014 (Annexure P-12).

¶24

The petitioner again filed a writ petition before the Court, which was transferred to the learned Tribunal and registered as T.A. No.5981 of 2015 and was disposed of on 26.07.2018 (Annexure P-13), directing the respondentUniversity to consider the case of the petitioner for

¶25

4

¶26

appointment as Audio System Operator after giving him relaxation. In sequel to the said order passed by the Tribunal, the respondent-University passed an order on 02.01.2019 (Annexure P-14) and adhoc services of the petitioner were regularized to the post of Audio System Operator in the pay band of Rs.5910-20200+GP of Rs.1900 plus allowances thereon as sanctioned by the respondent-University from time to time with immediate effect. The grievance of the petitioner as raised in the petition is that once the petitioner had remained in the respondent-University on daily wage basis from the year 1991 and was appointed on adhoc basis on 07.05.2003 as Audio System Operator prior to cut off date fixed as 15.05.2003 as per the Notification issued by the State Government, which was adopted by the respondentUniversity not to grant the pension, his adhoc services rendered w.e.f. 07.05.2003 to 31.12.2018 followed by regular service may be counted for the purpose of pension and other financial benefits.

¶27

5

¶28

The petitioner has also reiterated that his case is covered by the judgments passed in CWP No.4550 of 2010, titled, Ravi Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Anr. along with connected matters and LPA No.36 of 2010, titled, Sita Ram Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. The action on the part of the respondentUniversity to regularize his services w.e.f. 02.01.2019 as Audio System Operator after completion of 27 years of service is highly illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner has sought direction to the respondent-University to modify the regularization order dated 02.01.2019 and regularized his services from the year 2000 in terms of Policy adopted by the respondent-University or in the alternative, the respondentUniversity may be directed to treat the petitioner as appointed prior to 15.05.2003.

¶29

The respondent-University has filed reply to the petition and averred that no legal and fundamental right of the petitioner has ever been infringed by it and as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. The respondent-University has not disputed the facts as narrated above, but pleaded that

¶30

6

¶31

since the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed as Audio

¶32

System Operator, his services were not regularized earlier, however, after the direction given by the learned Tribunal, the services of the petitioner have been regularized vide office order dated 02.01.2019. It has further been averred that as per instructions of the State Government, the regularization in all the cases is form the prospective effect i.e. from the date of order of regularization is issued after completion of codal formalities.

¶33

The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply and controverted the facts pleaded in the reply.

¶34

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully.

¶35

It is not in dispute that the petitioner had been appointed as Audio System Operator vide office order dated 07.05.2003. When the petitioner was offered the appointment, the respondent-University had to ensure that the petitioner was fulfilling the requisite qualification to hold the post. The relief claimed by the petitioner that his regularization may be

¶36

7

¶37

treated from the anterior date is ill founded and cannot be

¶38

countenanced for the reason that the regularization operates only from date of issuance of the order. However, the request made by the petitioner that the period of adhoc service rendered by him be counted for the purpose of pension can be acceded to in view of the fact that this Court in Paras Ram

¶39

Vs. State of H.P. & Anr., Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 887, has held that the service rendered on adhoc basis if followed by regular service on the same post has to be counted for increments and pension. In the present case, the services of the petitioner have been regularized on the same post considering the past services rendered by him on adhoc basis. Since the petitioner had been working with the respondentUniversity w.e.f. 07.05.2003, the period of service rendered by him from said date till his retirement has to be counted for the purpose of increments and pension.

¶40

After passing the judgment in Paras Ram’s case

¶41

(supra) by the learned Single Judge, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Sita Ram’s case (supra) had also

¶42

8

¶43

reiterated the same view and held that if the adhoc service is

¶44

followed by regular service in the same post, the entire service will be counted for the purpose of increments and pension, but not for seniority. The said judgment has been implemented. Since in the present case, the services of the petitioner have been regularized by counting his adhoc service, he is entitled to count the entire adhoc service rendered by him w.e.f. 07.05.2003 till the date of his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has now retired from service on 30.11.2024 and during his service he was paid the increments. Once the respondentUniversity had paid the increments during his service period on adhoc basis, then the respondent-University cannot deny him the counting of the said period for pension.

¶45

Resultantly, in view of the above observations, the petition is allowed and the services rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 07.05.2003 till the date of his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation, be counted for the purpose of

¶46

9

¶47

pensionary benefits. Since the petitioner has retired from service, the respondent-University is directed to pay the pensionary benefits to the petitioner within six months from today. In case, the benefits are not paid within six months from today, the respondent-University shall pay interest on the arrears @ 6 % per annum from today till actual payment.

¶48

No orders as to cost. Pending applications, if any, also stand

¶49

disposed of.

¶50

21^st May, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Kiran) Judge

Ashwani Kumar v. Cskhpkv

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwani Kumar v. Cskhpkv

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

Anil Kumar Vs Hrtc and Ors.

Manish Kumar Vs Hrtc

Raksha Mankotia Vs State of Hp

Jagdish Chand Vs Hp State Forest Corporation

Raj Gopal Vs Hpsfc

Bimla Devi Vs Hpsfc