Himachal Pradesh High Court
Vikram Chand vs State Of H.P. And Another on 6 July, 2023
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.1635 of 2020 Decided on: 6th July, 2023
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vikram Chand .....Petitioner
.
Versus
State of H.P. and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Karan Singh Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional r Advocate General with Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge The writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date he completed 7 years of service with all consequential benefits.
2. The petitioner had earlier instituted civil writ petition, bearing CWP No.1174 of 2015, seeking the same relief as claimed in the instant petition on the strength of decision dated 19.11.2010, rendered in CWP No.7185 of 2010 (Swaru Ram and others Vs. State of H.P. and another). Vide judgment dated 25.2.2015, CWP No.1174 of 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2023 20:38:11 :::CIS 22015 was directed to be decided by the respondents. The respondents did not find favour with the petitioner, compelling him to institute the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted .
that Sh. Swaru Ram, i.e. petitioner in CWP No.7185 of 2010, was not only similarly situated as the present petitioner, rather he was junior to the present petitioner in the same department. Said Sh. Swaru Ram had also claimed regularization of his services from the due date with all consequential benefits. Writ petition preferred by Sh. Swaru Ram and others (CWP No.7185 of 2010) was decided on 19.11.2010, directing the respondents to look into the case and take appropriate action in accordance with law without discriminating the petitioners in that case.
The judgment rendered in Swaru Ram's case reads as under:-
"The petition is filed with the following prayer:-
"That the respondents may very kindly be directed to appoint the petitioners on regular basis by regularizing their services from due date with all consequential benefits."
2. According to the petitioners, similarly situate persons have been regularised after completion of ten years of service. Reference is also invited to Annexures P-6 and P-7. The learned Deputy Advocate General submits that regularization could be made only if vacancies are available. There will be a direction to 2nd respondent to look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law without discriminating the petitioners within three months from today on production of copy of this judgment and copy of writ petition by the petitioners.
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2023 20:38:11 :::CIS 33. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any."
4. The respondents have filed reply, inter-alia, stating that the services of the petitioner have been .
regularized vide office order dated 12.10.2017 (Annexure R/1). Learned Deputy Advocate General states that the services of the petitioner can be regularized only on the availability of vacancies, which fact has also been taken note of in the judgment rendered in Sh. Swaru Ram's case, supra.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that his services were required to be regularized from a much earlier date, i.e. from the date when he completed seven years of service with all consequential benefits. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents have regularized the services of ten of its employees including that of Sh. Swaru Ram vide office order dated 05.08.2013 (Annexure A-4). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar treatment was required to be meted out to the petitioner, who was senior to Sh. Swaru Ram.
Taking note of the above submissions, more particularly the contention of the petitioner that he was senior to Sh. Swaru Ram and was required to be regularized, if not earlier, then from the date of ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2023 20:38:11 :::CIS 4 regularization of Sh. Swaru Ram, is required to be examined by the respondents.
Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to have a fresh look in the .
matter and consider & decide the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services from the due date vis-à-vis the case of Sh. Swaru Ram (petitioner in CWP No.7185 of 2010) in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from today. The copy of the decision so taken be also communicated to the petitioner.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
July 06, 2023 Judge
Mukesh
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2023 20:38:11 :::CIS