Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 33]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Khem Raj vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 18 March, 2015

Author: Mansoor Ahmad Mir

Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                      CWP No. 7877 of 2010
                                      Decided on: 18.03.2015




                                                                  .

    Khem Raj                                               ...Petitioner.





                                   Versus

    State of Himachal Pradesh & others                     ...Respondents.

    Coram





    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.
    Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

    For the petitioner:        Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate.

    For the respondents:       Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General,
                               with Mr. Anup Rattan & Mr. Romesh
                               Verma, Additional Advocate Generals,


                               for respondent No. 1.

                               Nemo for respondents No. 2 and 3.




    Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice              (Oral)

The writ petitioner has entered in the second round of  litigation by the medium of this writ petition due to the inaction of  the respondents.  

2. The writ petitioner had filed CWP No. 1887 of 2010  before this Court seeking regularization of his services, which was  disposed of vide order, dated 22.06.2010, by a Division Bench  of  this   Court   with  a  direction  to  the  respondents  to examine the  ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:48:29 :::HCHP ­: 2 :­ case of the writ petitioner.   The respondents have examined his  case, but have not redressed his grievances, constraining him to file  .

the present writ petition.

3. Respondent   No.   2   has   filed   reply.     It   is   apt   to  reproduce paras 4 and 5 of the said reply herein:

"4. That the State Government has evolved the   policies   of   regularization   and   is   made   ipso   facto   applicable   to   the   Respondent   Board/APMCs.  According to the policy, DPLs,   who   have   completed   8   years   of   continuous   service as such with 240 days in a calendar   r year,   become   eligible   to   be   considered   for   regularization.  But regularization is made in   accordance   with   the   Recruitment   and   Promotion   Rules   of   respective   categories,   seniority,   available   sanctioned/vacant   posts   in­as   much   as   after   observing   all   codal   formalities.  Copy enclosed hereto as Annexure   R­2.

5.   That   the   petitioner   being   Matric   IIIrd   Division, does not fulfill the requisite criteria   of   essential   education   qualification   as   10+2   provided under the R & P Rules for the post of   Clerk.     It   is   further   made   clear   that   the   petitioner   did   not   possess   the   education   qualification as Matric IInd Division or 10+2   even at the time of his initial engagement as   daily   waged   Clerk,   which   was   applicable   under the repealed R & P rules for the post of   Clerk at that  time.   This material fact came   into the notice of the respondent Board at the   time   of   scrutinization   of   cases   in   respect   of   daily   waged   workers   for   regularization.   Hence, he is not covered under the said policy   of regularization.   Therefore, the daily waged   services of the petitioner were to be considered   for   regularization   as   Peon­Cum­Chowkidar,   Class­IV    against     the     sanctioned     post.  

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:48:29 :::HCHP

­: 3 :­ Therefore,   the   petitioner   was   offered   regularization  as Class­IV  i.e.  entry  grade  of   the petitioner vide Ann. P­2.   But he declined   .

the offer and opted to continue as daily waged   Clerk.   It is further submitted that 54 post of   peon   Cum   Chowkidar,   class­IV,   stands   filled   up  except   one,   which   has   been   kept   unfilled   with   the   orders   of   Hon'ble   High   Court   in   another similar writ petition in compliance of   the   orders   dt.   16.01.2009   passed   by   this   Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 186/2009 titled as   Man   Singh   Versus   State   of   H.P.   &   ors.   Similarly 38 sanctioned posts of Clerks stands   filled up."

  

4. In view of the above, I deem it proper to dispose of  this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider  the   case   of   the   writ   petitioner   for   granting   relaxation   in   the  qualification and for regularization in light of the Rules occupying  the field and make a decision within six weeks.

5. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly, alongwith  all pending applications, if any.

   (Mansoor Ahmad Mir)            Chief Justice     March 18, 2015 ( tilak ) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:48:29 :::HCHP