Sureshwar Thakur,J. -
(1.) One Sher Singh had filed O.A No. 6331 of 2018, before the erstwhile H.P State Administrative Tribunal, and, therein he had arrayed the writ petitioner, as, co-respondent No.3. The relief(s) sought therein by Sher Singh are extracted hereinafter:-
7(i) That the respondent University may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the applicant w.e.f 11.12.1992 qua the post of Architectural Assistant GradeII with all consequential benefits in light of the principle of parity as well as in light of the factum that the respondent University has regularized the services of junior person i.e private respondent against the same post after rendering one year adhoc service qua the post of Architectural Assistant Grade-II, whereas the services of the applicant were regularized after rendering 7 years service against the post of Architectural Assistant GradeII.
(ii) That the respondent University may kindly be directed to give promotion to the applicant to the post of Architectural Assistant w.e.f 11.12.1995 with all consequential benefits as per old Recruitment and Promotion Rules.
(iii) That the respondent University may kindly be directed to give promotion to the applicant to the post of Assistant Architect w.e.f 11.12.2001 with all consequential benefits as per old Recruitment and Promotion Rules.
(iv) That the respondent University may kindly be directed to given promotion to the applicant to the post of Architect w.e.f 11.12.2009 with all consequential benefits as per old Recruitment and Promotion Rules.
(v) That the respondent University may kindly be directed to carry the revision of pay scale of the applicant w.e.f 11.12.1995 qua the post of Architectural Assistant, qua the post of Assistant Architect w.e.f 11.12.2001 and qua the post of Architect w.e.f 11.12.2009 with all consequential benefits."
(2.) However, on 4.12.2018, the erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal directed the respondent-University, to, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the afore Sher Singh, and, to the petitioner herein, hence decide the afore claims reared in O.A No. 6331 of 2018. Consequently, in pursuance thereof, the respondents through Annexure R-8, made a decision, for making rectification(s) of the date of regularization(s) in service, hence against the apposite post(s), of, both the afore(s). The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the afore rectification. Even though, prima-facie the rectification, as, made through Annexure R-8, vis-avis, the date of regularization in service of the writ petitioner, against, the apposite post, may tentatively carry some legal tenacity, in as much, as, it emanates from instructions issued qua therewith,
(i) and, as become embodied in Annexure R-7, appended with the reply filed to the writ petition, (ii) wherein, stipulations become borne, that only after completion of 5 years of continuous service, in an adhoc capacity, the employee concerned would become entitled to be meted the benefit of regularization in service, hence against the apposite post. Nonetheless, since the afore rule or cannon is to be applied, from the date of rendition of service, by the aspirant concerned, hence on an adhoc capacity, against the post concerned, thereupon, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, argues, that, despite availability of posts as evident from Annexure P-3, whereons the petitioner became facilitated, to, render adhoc services, yet the respondent-University denied to him the afore opportunity, and, also caused a severe damage for his being earlier considered, for regularization against the relevant post.
(3.) The learned counsel for the writ petitioner, further argues, that since one Sher Singh was permitted to render duties, on an adhoc capacity against the apposite post, and, when from commencements thereof(s), the apposite period of 5 years is to be computed, for, the benefit of regularization is made, being meted to the aspirant concerned, (i) thereupon the inaction by the respondent concerned, upon, Annexure P-3, besides with its authorship rather remaining un-controverted, by the respondent-university in its reply, galvanizes an inference, that the afore permissibly purveyable rendition(s) of service, to the petitioner, in an adhoc capacity, by the respondent-University, when hence ensued to him in the year 1993, thereupon he therein held a right to be thereat hence appointed thereagainst, and, or even nowat he is deemed to be appointed thereagainst in the year 1994, whereat he completed three years of service, on, daily waged basis, for, hence his validly seeking qua his being assigned duties on an adhoc basis against the afore vacant post, as, no consequential pecuniary benefit ensue therethrough, to, the petitioner.;