SUSHIL CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by means of this petition seeks direction to the respondents to correct his seniority as per Annexure P12, i.e., letter of Executive Officer, Municipal Council addressed to the Director Urban Development and also to release due and admissible consequential benefits.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as daily -wager in the respondents department on 1.4.1992 along with one Smt. Bimla Devi. It is the case of the petitioner that the services of said Bimla Devi were regularized as per Annexure P1 dated 20.9.2000, but qua the petitioner though regularization order was issued in March 2000 against a newly created post but the order was implemented one year thereafter. The petitioner had made several representations to respondent No. 3, but however, despite the communication made by the Executive Officer on 10.5.2010 to the Director vide Annexure P12 nothing was done. The said letter reads as under: -

(3.) HOWEVER , the another relief sought qua implementation of regularization from March, 2000 instead of March 2001 cannot be granted for more than one reason, i.e., the regularization can only be ordered/allowed against a sanctioned post on the establishment of 3rd respondent and he was regularized against a vacancy when it was made available on its creation as is evident from Annexure P2. Significantly, petitioner failed to point out that earlier to that the post against which he was regularized was available to him whereas Bimla Devi was safai -karamchari and was regularized against the vacant post which was available for her. Lastly the respondents have denied in their reply that the regularization order was issued in March 2000. Thus, while allowing the first relief as above, the prayer for second relief is declined.