Decided on March 02,2020

State Of H.P. And Others Respondents


SURESHWAR THAKUR,J. - (1.)The writ petitioner, through, the instant petition, has, claimed the hereinafter extracted reliefs:
"i) That the respondents may be directed to regularize the services of the applicant on and w.e.f. August 1996 i.e. on the completion of 10 years of service with all Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? consequential benefits or in alternate notionally without any financial benefits.

ii) The respondents may be further directed to grant him the consequential benefits consequent upon his regularization w.e.f. August 1996 and may be held entitled for pension etc. also."

(2.)The writ petitioner, as displayed, in Annexure A16, holds, a, diploma in Mechanical Engineering, from, Punjab State Board of Technical Education. The learned Additional Advocate General, resists the claim of the writ petitioner, by placing reliance, upon, Annexure R1, wherein he is echoed, to, work, in, three different categories i.e. as Helper w.e.f. 7.3.1990 to 31.12.1990, Mechanic w.e.f. 1.1.1991 to 31.5.1995, and, as Junior Engineer w.e.f. 1.6.1995, under, the respondents, hence, on a daily rated basis. He further makes, a, contention, that, since the writ petitioner, has rendered service, as, revealed in Annexure R1, as, a, Junior Engineer (Mechanical), w.e.f. 1.6.1995 to 1.1.2005, hence on a daily rated basis, (i) thereupon the regularzation, of, the services of the writ petitioner, in, the year 2005, as, a Junior Engineer (Mechanical), is, valid. He also proceeds to make, a, further contention, that, assumingly, if, the service(s), on, daily wage basis, became rendered by the writ petitioner, as, a Junior Engineer (Mechanical), under, the respondents concerned, and, if assumingly they commenced, from, the year 1986, and, ended in the year 1995, (ii) and even if, assumingly, the, displays in Annexure R1, are, inadvertently made, (iii) thereupon the claim reared, by the writ petitioner, that, he had remained absent from duty, from 19.12.1987, upto 6.3.1990, purportedly on medical grounds, is, fallaciously reared, given the afore period, of, his absence from duty rather remaining uncondoned, (iv) consequently, when he also has failed to complete, the, requisite period, of, 240 days, of, continuous service, in each calendar year, (iv) thereupon the afore period w.e.f. 19.12.1987 upto 6.3.1990, cannot be construed, to be a period, wherein he rendered, the, requisite continuous service, under the respondents nor it can be totaled hence, for, completing or computing the requisite period, of, 10 years, of, qualifying service, by the petitioner, (v) rather assumingly commencing from the afore date, rather whereat, he became initially engaged, on a daily rated basis, as a Junior Engineer (Mechanical), under, the respondents, nor he can make any valid claim, that, his services be regularized, in, the year 1995.
(3.)However, displays are yet made in Annexure R1, visavis, his rendering service, on a daily wage basis, from 19.12.1987 upto 6.3.1990, and, also echoings are made therein, visavis, within the afore period, the, petitioner performing supervisory duties. Moreover the afore echoings, are, also unfolded in Annexure A2, qua, the petitioner performing the afore duties, in a supervisory capacity, from the year 1991 to 1994, under, the respondents. Consequently, the afore made echoings, benumb, all the efficacies, of, the afore made submission(s), hence anvilled, upon, Annexure R
1. Moreover, further contentions, are also made, in the reply, filed by the respondents, that, the petitioner has failed to render, the, requisite period, of, continuous service, in each calendar years concerned, for, ten years, given his remaining absent from duties w.e.f. 19.12.1987 upto 6.3.1990, and, his afore absence, purportedly, on, medical ground(s), for the afore period remaining not condoned, (ii) thereupon the writ petitioner, cannot claim the benefit, of, regularization, in, service, as a Junior Engineer (Mechanical), from, the year 1986. However, the afore contention also appears to be made, by the learned Additional Advocate General, with his being unmindful, visavis, the echoings made in Annexure A7, wherein, the period, of, his absence, has been condoned, for the period, as, claimed by the petitioner, in his application. However, the afore application, is, not placed on record. Consequently, if the application whereon, Annexure A7 was rendered, the petitioner hence claimed condonation, of, the entire period, of, his absence from duties, hence, from 19.12.1987, upto, 6.3.1990, (iii) thereupon only Annexure A7 shall fully operate, and, otherwise it shall operate only, visavis, the period(s), as, are mentioned, in, the application, whereon Annexure A7, become drawn.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.