Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sterlization Centre vs State Of H.P. And on 12 October, 2022
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 12th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) No. 31 OF 2019
Between:-
MR. JALMU RAM SON OF SMT.
SAMAJO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
ALOTI,POST OFFICE DHARECH,
TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA,
H.P. PRESENTLY WORKING AS
ANIMAL ATTENDANT IN MONKEY
STERLIZATION CENTRE,TUTIKANDI,
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
..........PETITIONER
(BY MR. BALWANT SINGH THAKUR,
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY (FORESTS) TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH, SHIMLA-171002.
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF
CONSERVATOR OFFORESTS
(WILDLIFE), TALLAND, SHIMLA-
171001.
3. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF
FOREST(WILDLIFE), SHIMLA,
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHIMLA,
H.P.
4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
H.P. ZOOS CONSERVATION AND
BREEDING SOCIETY, SHIMLA-
CUM-DIVISIONAL FOREST
OFFICER, ZO AND RESCUE
DIVISION SHIMLA (FOREST
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:50:29 :::CIS
2
OFFICE COMPLEX KHALINI),
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHIMLA,
H.P.
.
..........RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. SUMESH RAJ, DINESH THAKUR AND
SANJEEV SOOD, ADDITIONAL AGS WITH MR.
AMIT KUMAR DHUMAL, DEPUTY AG FOR THE
RESPONDENTS
___________________________________________________________
Whether approved for reporting: Yes
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court
passed the following:-
JUDGEMENT
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-
"(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the applicant for regularization immediate after the completion of five years services on contractual basis as per the policy dated 07.05.2015, Annexure A-10, with all consequential benefits, with interest @ 18% per annum.
(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the arrears of salary to the applicant from 31.03.2015 till the regularization of his services by the respondents.::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:50:29 :::CIS 3
(iii) That the respondents may further be directed to pay equal pay for equal work to the applicant with .
effect from due date.
(iv) That the respondents may kindly be directed to decide the representation, Annexure A-7, submitted by the applicant, within time bound manner."
2. The petitioner is serving as an Animal Attendant with the H.P. Zoos Conservation and Breeding Society, Shimla, after his appointment as such, on contract basis, vide Annexure A-3, dated 21st February, 2009, since 27th February, 2009. The case of the petitioner is that vide communication dated 13th March, 2008 Annexure A-1, the Additional Chief Secretary (Forests) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, called upon the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh, informing the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests that the government had approved the arrangement proposed by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, in terms of his letter dated 13.11.2007, on the subject "Monkey Sterilization at Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre-Issues regarding" and that as far as the staff to be engaged by the Society was concerned, the same was to be engaged on contract basis for one year, to begin with at the rates as were applicable to the contract appointees in the government departments. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests was ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:50:29 :::CIS 4 directed to follow proper selection process in this regard.
Thereafter, the name of the petitioner was sponsored by the .
Employment Exchange, Theog, for the post of Animal Attendant in Monkey Sterilization Centre Tutikandi/ongoing Monkey Project in Himachal Pradesh to be filled in by HP Zoos Conservation and Breeding Society Shimla on fixed payment of Rs. 3000/- per month on contract basis for a period of one year at the first instance which was likely to be extended till completion of ongoing Monkey Project or which was earlier. This was done vide Annexure A-2, dated 20.01.2009. Thereafter, vide Annexure A-3, dated 21.02.2009, the petitioner was offered appointment against the post of Animal Attendant, on the basis of interview held for recruiting persons against the said post on 04.02.2009. The engagement of the petitioner was on contract basis for one year with effect from the date of joining extendable further depending upon the availability of work, funds as also performance of the petitioner, on a consolidated amount of Rs.3,000/- per month. As already mentioned hereinabove, the petitioner thereafter joined the services against the post of Animal Attendant in the society concerned w.e.f. 27th February, 2009 and is stated to be continuing till date as such on contract basis though monthly emoluments which were being paid to him by the Society as of now are stated to be Rs.12,000/-. The grievance of the petitioner is that ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:50:29 :::CIS 5 despite the fact that the Government of Himachal Pradesh, has, from time to time, issued policies of regularization of contract .
appointees of the Government Departments, as is evident from Annexure A-10, Instructions dated 07.05.2015 on the subject 'Regularization of contract appointees in the Government Departments-Instructions thereof', yet the services of the petitioner are not being regularized despite the fact that he is fulfilling the criteria as is laid down in the said instructions by the Government pertaining to the regularization of the contract appointees. To be brief, it is in this background that the petition stands filed seeking the reliefs, already enumerated hereinabove.
3. Mr. Balwant Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the act of the respondent of not regularizing the services of the petitioner, in terms of the instructions issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time qua regularization of contract appointees, is arbitrary and discriminatory as the services of the petitioner cannot be continued on contract basis till infinity, more so, in the light of the fact that though his initial engagement was only for one year but with the condition that the same was likely to continue subject to availability of work, funds and his conduct yet the services of the petitioner have been continued for the last 13 years, which demonstrates that work is available, funds are also available and ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:50:29 :::CIS 6 work of the petitioner is also satisfactory. Learned Counsel further argued that otherwise also the only reason which is coming forth .
from the response filed by the respondents as to why the services of the petitioner are not being regularized is that he is an employee of the Society whereas the instructions pertaining to regularization take into its ambit the government departments only. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, this distinction which has been created by the Government between the contractual incumbents in the Government Departments and contractual incumbents working in the Societies owned and controlled by the Government, is arbitrary and against the provisions of Articles 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, he has prayed that the present petition be allowed and the services of the petitioner be ordered to be regularized in terms of Annexure A-1 as after completion of 5 years service on contract basis as on 31.03.2015.
4. The petition has been opposed by the respondents inter alia on the ground that the replying State has yet not formulated any policy for regularization of daily wagers and contractual appointees appointed under HP Zoos Conservation and Breeding Society, Shimla, and moreover, the Society engages the persons on the basis of need of work. It is further the stand of the respondents that at the time when the petitioner was recruited, it was made clear that the appointment was being offered to him purely on ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:50:29 :::CIS 7 contract basis in a Society and that the candidate will not claim continuance in service after completion of the contract or the .
project. The appointment letter itself was explicit that the appointment would not confer any right of regularization upon the incumbent. It is further the stand of the respondents that the petitioner accepted the post of Animal Attendant in terms of the agreement, which was executed between him and the Society and this was done by him voluntarily and once he accepted the conditions of the contract, now he is estopped from raising the claim as is being raised by him by way of this petition. Learned Additional Advocate General on the strength of the stand which has been taken by the respondents in the reply has submitted that there are large number of contractual employees engaged in various societies in the State of Himachal Pradesh and as far as the contractual employees of the HP Zoos and Conservation Breeding Society, Shimla, are concerned, the governing body of this Society has already taken a decision in its meeting held on 09.06.2015, copy whereof is appended with the petition as Annexure R-3, that whatever decision will be taken by the Government with regard to regularization of the employees engaged on contract basis in Societies would be followed by it.
Learned Additional Advocate General thus submits that because till date no decision has been taken by the government to the effect ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:50:29 :::CIS 8 that the instructions which have been issued by the Government with regard to regularization of services of the contractual .
appointees in the various government departments, would also be applicable to the employees engaged on contract basis in the respondent-Society, therefore, the services of the petitioner cannot be ordered to be regularized at this stage and till the time a policy decision is taken by the Government of Himachal Pradesh in this regard, the petitioner will have to wait. Learned Additional Advocate General has also drawn the attention of the Court to the documents which have been filed alongwith the affidavit filed by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Wildlife (South), Shimla, dated 10.03.2022, and by referring to Annexure R-II appended therewith, which are Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Multipurpose Animal Attendant/Sweeper/Cleaner in the respondent-Society, he has submitted that as now the Recruitment and Promotion Rules have been formulated, and they also stand published in the official Gazette, therefore also, the post has to be filled in as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, which clearly envisage that employment will be on contract basis only and in this background the petitioner has no right to claim regularization.
Accordingly, he has submitted that the present petition is devoid of any merit and the same be dismissed.
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:50:29 :::CIS 95. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents .
appended therewith.
6. During the Course of hearing of this case, when the matter was listed on 15.12.2021, the Court passed the following order:-
"Heard for some time. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the services of the petitioner who is serving as an Animal Attendant on contract basis with the respondent-society since the year 2009, has till date not been regularized, though it is the admitted stand of the respondent-society that for the purpose of regularization of the services of employees like the petitioner, the society shall be governed by the policy of the Government. He has further submitted that as Recruitment and Promotion Rules have been framed for recruiting Animal Attendants, then the act of the respondent-society of paying only contractual emoluments to the petitioner rather than paying the pay scale of the post to the petitioner is also not sustainable in law and the same is arbitrary and discriminatory.
Learned Additional Advocate General submits that before the matter is heard any further, the hearing thereof ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:50:29 :::CIS 10 be deferred by 10 days to enable him to have appropriate instructions in this regard. Ordered accordingly.
List on 29.12.2021, as prayed for.
.
7. In response thereto, an affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 by Chief Conservator Forest Wildlife (South), Circle Shimla, the relevant part whereof is being reproduced herein below:-
"7. That in the year 2008-09, the said Society deployed staff under certain terms and conditions on contract basis till completion of project i.e. for five years. Such staff was to be kept for one year at first instance and to be continued for further four years for operationalization of Monkey sterilization Centers at Tutikandi Shimla.
8 That all the multipurpose animal attendant / sweeper/ cleaner including petitioner were well conversant with the terms and conditions of the contract service at the time of their appointment on contract basis. As per offer letter No.3224 dated 21.2.2009. Annexure R-I, it was clearly mentioned in condition No. 2 (h) that working on contract shall not confer any rights to incumbent for the regularization. The last line of the offer letter clearly specify that the candidate engaged on contract basis shall have no right to claim regularization / permanent absorption as multipurpose Animal Attendant and Sweepers/cleaner in HPZCBS in any case. . Further incumbents as per offer were to be paid consolidated ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:50:29 :::CIS 11 amount of Rs.3000/- per month. Petitioner duly accepted the same and was accordingly engaged as animal attendant on contractual basis in year 2009.
.
Further contact, of all such contractual employees of HPZCBS are renewed annually subject to fulfilment of terms and conditions.
9. That petitioner is governed by the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the said Society and is being paid as per Rules approved for the same from Governing Board of the Society which were framed in 2018. r
10. That the petitioner is being paid emoluments as per the R&P Rules framed for the Multipurpose Animal Attendant/Sweeper/Cleaner as being engaged on contract basis and further consolidated fixed contractual amount of Rs. 4900-10 1300GP-6200/- per month as prescribed in para 4 in the HP.Z and Conservation Breeding Society (HPZCBS), Multipurpose Animal Attendant/Sweepers/Cleaner Class-IV (Non Gazetted Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2018 Annexure R-II is paid to such employees alongwith admissible dearness allowance decided by Governing Board of the Society alongwith annual increments.
11. That the petitioner is getting emoluments as per RAF Rules of society for Multipurpose Animal Attendant. There is no provision for providing regular status in the society being temporary set up. Further it is submitted that as per R&P Rules of HPZCBS Society ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:50:29 :::CIS 12 for Multipurpose Animal Attendant (Annexure R-II) contractual emoluments of such employees is Rs.6200 per month which is equal to minimum of pay band .
plus grade pay Dearness allowance in term of percentage of the DA admissible to regular HP Govt. Employees is to be decided by Governing Board of HPZCBS Society from time to time. Further there shall be annual increase of 3% minimum of pay band plus grade pay of the post in contractual enhancement to such employees of HPZCBS Society as per R&P Rules (Annexure R-11). However it is clear under such rules that all depends up on financial health of society.
There is no provision of regular pay scale or regularization in such R&P Rules which was very much clear as per the letter No.3224 dated 21.2.2009 i.e. offer to petitioner (Annexure R-1 which clearly specified that working on contract shall not confer any rights to incumbent for any regularization. Last line of offer clearly specify that the candidate engaged on contract basis shall have no right to claim regularization /permanent absorption as attendant in HPZCBS. Further contracts of all such contractual employees of HPZCBS including petitioner are renewed annually subject to fulfilment of terms and conditions. Also incumbents were to be paid consolidated amount Rs.3000/- per month.
12. That petitioner is being paid contractual emoluments as per R&P Rules for post of Multipurpose Animal Attendant (Annexure R-II) and petitioner is ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:50:29 :::CIS 13 having no merit in his case. The Governing Board of the Society enhanced the contractual amount of the petitioner alongwith their eligible incumbents during .
year 2014 from consolidated amount of Rs.3000/- as per Annexure R-III. The petitioner has been given pay including percentage of dearness allowances as agreed by Governing Board in its 13th meeting on dated 04.08.2018 and after finalization of the R & P Rules of Multipurpose Animal Attendant / Sweepers / Cleaner Class-IV (Non Gazetted), in 2018 petitioner has been given increased contractual emoluments from back date that is on the completion of 7 years of services of the petitioners w.e.f 01.08.2016 as per decision of Governing Board of the Society in its 13"meeting at point No. 5 as per Annexure R-IV. It is further clarified that there is no provision of regularization in such R&P Rules infact contractual emoluments includes pay band plus grade pay alongwith percentage of dearness allowance as decided in Governing Board of Society. However, 3% annual increase of grade pay plus band shall be allowed if contract is extended. That as per 13"
meeting (Annexure R-IV) it is clarified that contractual employment of such contractual employees including petitioner of HPZCBS Society was increased on basis of increase in percentage of dearness allowance w.e.f. 01.04.2016 as per Annexure R-V. where contractual enhancement including dearness allowance as per page No.6, column No.iv of Annexure-R-IV has been paid to the petitioner alongwith admissible arrear ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:50:29 :::CIS 14 w.e.f. 1.4.2016 alongwith admissible increments. Further annual increment as per R&P Rules as admissible are also being paid to the petitioner.
.
Further there is no provision of regularization in HPZCBS society as per R&P Rules of animal attendant / cleaner/ sweeper & all employee of Society being engaged on contract which is extended yearly subject to satisfying terms and conditions of HPZCBS.
13. That there is no provision of any regularization in HPZCBS Society as per R&P Rules. Employees appointed in HPZCBS get contractual emoluments as per admissibility and as per Rules of HPZCBS Society.
14. That since petitioner alongwith the other workers being contractual employees of HPZCBS are governed by the R&P Rules for Animal Attendants, Cleaner /Sweepers, etc. of the Society. Further it is submitted that such contractual employees of the Society shall be covered under the policy of HPZCBS as being engaged by said Society on contract basis and not being Government employees said and are governed under R&P Rules of HPZCBS subject to the terms and conditions of such contract given in the R&P Rules of the Society."
8. The reason as to why the contents of the affidavit have been referred to in the judgment in extensio is that what is contained in the above referred paras 7 to 14 of the affidavit, is depicting the stand of the respondent State as to why the ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:50:29 :::CIS 15 petitioner is not entitled for regularization. The primary reason being assigned by the respondents as to why the petitioner, who is .
serving on contract basis as of now is not entitled for regularization in terms of the instructions which have been issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh regarding regularization of contract appointees in the Government Departments is that the instructions are applicable only to the contract appointees in the Government Departments whereas the petitioner is not an appointee of a Government Department but is an appointee of the Society.
9. Society in issue is HP Zoos Conservation and Breeding Society. Incidentally, the Chief Executive Officer of the said Society happens to be the Divisional Forest Officer, Zoos and Rescue Division, Shimla, meaning thereby that the Society is being headed by a Government Officer, who heads the same by virtue of the office, which he is holding. The Society, as is evident from Annexure P-12 appended with the petition at page 177 of the paper book, is a Society registered with Registrar, Cooperative Societies, H.P. Shimla, from which it could be safely inferred that it is a Society registered under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2006.
10. Annexure P-12, are the minutes of the proceedings of 10th Meeting of HP Zoos & Conservation Breeding Society ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:50:29 :::CIS 16 (HPZCBS), held on 09.06.2015. The document in which the proceedings of the meeting stand recorded starts with the heading .
"Himachal Pradesh Forest Department Wildlife Wing", in terms whereof, the meeting was attended by 19 participants and except the participants whose names are at Sr. No. 17 and 19, all are State Government Functionaries. Though, the parties have not placed on record the aim and objectives as to why this Society was constituted but the nomenclature of the Society itself is self speaking that the Society has been formed for the purpose of conservation and breeding in Himachal Pradesh Wildlife Zoos.
11. Be that as it may, all that the Court intends to emphasize from what has been stated hereinabove, is that may be the nomenclature of the employer of the petitioner is that of a Society but the Society itself is owned and controlled by the Government of Himachal Pradesh in general and the Forest Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh in particular, which makes the Society 'State', within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
12. Further the very fact that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, which have been framed in the year 2018, which have been published in the Hiamchal Pradesh Official Gazette is also a clear indicator that the Society is a government owned Society.
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:50:29 :::CIS 1713. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that the nomenclature of the post, which is being held by the petitioner, is .
now the Multipurpose Animal Attendant. Before proceeding further, one more fact of which this Court is taking judicial notice is this that though the instructions/policy for regularization of contract employees, as have been issued by the State Government, refers only to "regularization of contract appointees in the Government Departments" but fact of the matter is that on the strength of these instructions, contract employees, who have been engaged in various Boards and Corporations, owned and controlled by the Government of Hiamchal Pradesh, have also been regularized.
14. In the backdrop of what has been discussed herein above, this Court is of the considered view that the act of denying regularization to the petitioner on the basis of instructions, which have been issued by the State Government pertaining to the regularization of contract appointees, simply on the ground that the petitioner does not happens to be an employee of a Government Department, is arbitrary and discriminatory. The work which is being done by the Society otherwise is the work which has to be carried out by the State Government and State Government in its wisdom rather than executing said work from the department, decided to constitute a Society to undertake ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:50:29 :::CIS 18 various activities and it was thereafter that the services of the petitioner and may be other incumbents similarly situated like the .
petitioner, were taken on contract basis.
15. The decision to constitute the Society was that of the Government. The decision to engage employees in the Society on contract basis was that of the government. Therefore, in these circumstances, the benefit of the instructions which have been issued from time to time by the government pertaining to regularization of contract employees cannot be denied to the petitioner simply on the ground that he happens to an employee of the society and not of a government department.
16. As far as the stand of the respondents, as is also urged by learned Additional Advocate General, is concerned that the petitioner has accepted the terms and conditions of the appointment offered to him on contract basis without any condition, this Court holds that bargaining power of a person who is being offered appointment on contract basis cannot be compared to the employer. This Court is of the view that in such like circumstances, the persons like the petitioner, have no option but to accept the engagement on whatever terms, the same is offered to them and they per force sign the terms and conditions on dotted lines.
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:50:29 :::CIS 1917. At this stage, the Court would like to dwell upon the factum of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules as have been .
framed for the purpose of Multipurpose Animal Attendant by the respondent-State in the year 2018. At the time when the petitioner was engaged as Animal Attendant in the respondent-Society, there were no Recruitment and Promotion Rules governing the recruitment process to any post, be it on daily wage basis, on contract basis or regular basis, yet, the recruitment of the petitioner cannot be said to be a back door entry for the reason that his name was duly sponsored by the Employment Exchange and he was recruited on contract basis by the respondent-Society by following the procedure which the society resorted to at the relevant time to recruit the incumbents. However, thereafter the Society has formulated the Recruitment and Promotion Rules which are on record and in terms thereof, the post of Multipurpose Animal Attendant, has to be filled in, if on contract basis, then inter alia from amongst those candidates who fulfill the minimum educational and other qualification criteria and Multipurpose Animal Attendants who already stand engaged in the respondent-
Society and are having 7 years of service as daily wagers with minimum 240 days in each calendar year.
18. The petitioner is serving the respondent-Society since 27th February, 2009 and though he is not appointed on daily wage ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:50:29 :::CIS 20 basis and is appointed on contract basis but it is not in dispute that he has been serving as such continuously and has put in .
more than 240 days in each calendar year. Meaning thereby that in terms of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules as on the date when the R&P Rules came into force, the petitioner had a right to be appointed against the post of Multipurpose Animal Attendant, may be on contract basis, in terms of the said Recruitment and Promotion Rules, in view of the fact he was a serving incumbent in the respondent-Society who had completed 7 years of service and was also possessing the minimum educational and other qualifications. This the Court is observing for the reason that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is 8th pass and he also has experience of performing various zoos related works as he has been serving the respondent-Society itself since 27th February, 2009.
19. Therefore, from the date said Recruitment and Promotion Rules came into force, the minimum that was expected from the State Government was that the services of the petitioner ought to have been brought on contract basis by invoking the provisions of said Rules. Though in the affidavit which has been referred to by me hereinabove, it stands mentioned in para-10 thereof that the petitioner is being paid emoluments as per the R&P Rules framed for the Multipurpose Animal Attendant/ ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:50:29 :::CIS 21 Sweeper/Cleaners as being engaged on contract basis but this affidavit is conspicuously silent as to whether after these Rules .
came into force, the services of the petitioner were converted to contract basis in terms of these Recruitment and Promotion Rules by subsuming one post against the name of the petitioner. That not being clear from the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and though it is not a prayer made in the writ petition and rightly so for the reason that Recruitment and Promotion Rules came into force in the year 2018 and the present petition has been filed before the learned Tribunal in the 2015, this Court is of the considered view that a mandamus is required to be issued to the respondents to first convert the services of the petitioner on contract basis in terms of Recruitment and Promotion Rules as from the date when the Recruitment and Promotion Rules came into force, provided the petitioner was fulfilling the eligibility criteria which is not much in dispute and thereafter, a further direction is required to be issued to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner after completion of such number of years of service as is contained in the policy of regularization which governs the field as of today as this Court has already held hereinabove that the act of the respondent-department of denying regularization to the petitioner in terms of the instructions issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh qua regularization of ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:50:29 :::CIS 22 contract appointees on the ground that the petitioner happens to be an incumbent serving in a Society is not sustainable in the eyes .
of law. Ordered accordingly.
20. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1102 of 2011, titled as Sanjay and others Vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 28.05.2014 and other connected matter. By way of this judgment, Hon'ble Coordinate Bench has been pleased to order the regularization of the services of the petitioners therein, who were serving in the Rogi Kalyan Samiti, in terms of the policy of regularization issued by the State Government. The Court has been informed that this judgment has attained finality and stands implemented. That being the case, as the petitioners in the abovementioned writ petition were also being denied regularization on the ground that they were not the employees of the State Government but that of a Society, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench squarely applies to the facts of the present case and therefore also, the petitioner cannot be denied regularization by the respondents on the ground that he happens to be an employee of the Society.
21. Accordingly, this petition is allowed with the direction that the respondents are directed to convert the services of the petitioner on contract basis by deeming him to have been ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:50:29 :::CIS 23 appointed as such under the 2018 Recruitment and Promotion Rules issued by respondent No. 2 and thereafter, his services be .
regularized in terms of the policy of the respondent-State after completion of requisite number of years of service on contract basis by taking the date of his appointment on contract basis to be the date on which 2018 Rules came into force. The regularization of the petitioner shall be with all consequential benefits but the monetary benefits shall be given to him on notional basis only, till the date of the decision of this judgment and thereafter, actual benefits be given to him, however, benefit of seniority shall entail from the date of regularization.
The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 12, 2022 (narender) ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:50:29 :::CIS