IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. : 7224 of 2008 Decided on : 22.10.2010 Bhagat Ram … Petitioner. Versus H.P. State Electricity Board and Others … Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For respondents: Ms. Anjula Khajuria ________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.(Oral). The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers: - “7.(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to appoint the applicant on regular basis as Junior Draughtsman w.e.f. 17.11.1995, when the immediate junior to the applicant was appointed on regular basis, alongwith all the consequential benefits. (ii) That the respondents may further be directed to reflect the name of the applicant in the seniority list of Junior Draughtsmen as per his right and entitlement, as submitted above, and to promote the applicant to the post of Draughtsman w.e.f. 27.3.1999, when immediate juniors to the applicant have been promoted vide order dated 27.3.1999 issued by the respondent No.3, alongwith all consequential benefits.” 2. In the reply at page 41, para-1 (ii), it is stated thus:- “1.(ii) The applicant herein was initially engaged as Daily Waged Beldar w.e.f. 26.01.1987 and later on engaged as daily wages JDM w.e.f. 26.03.1987. The applicant has alleged that he has not been regularised w.e.f. 11/1995 from when some of the persons stated to be juniors to him have been regularized and he has been regularized w.e.f. 25.03.1997. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 The process of regularization in HPSEB was started during the year 1991-92 when a settlement of regularization was made before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in pursuance to various CWP’s. The Board had constituted Screening Committee (s) to verify/ interview all the daily wagers and to submit its reports after verification of all such record/ certificates from field offices as well as from individual workmen. The Screening Committee which had visited the Division where the applicant was working during 1991 had verified his particulars. No documents of Technical Qualification had been mentioned / verified. Therefore, on the basis of this report of the Screening Committee, the applicant was not found eligible for the post of regular Junior Draughtsman post during 1995, when all such persons who were fulfilling the requisite qualifications were regularized. The applicant had not produced his certificates of Technical/qualification before the Screening Committee during 1991 therefore his name could not be considered during 1995 for regular post. However, during 1996 the Board again constituted Screening Committees. The applicant produced his certificate of ITI (D/man) before this committee and this time he was found eligible in accordance with the R&P Regularization for the post of JDM. The regularization orders were therefore issued on the basis of the report of this committee during 03/1997. The seniority of the applicant has been circulated (Annexure-R-1) from the date of he has joined on regular post of JDM.” 3. We are afraid that the stand taken in the reply cannot be appreciated. It is significant to note that the respondent-Board did not take such a stand when the petitioner had approached the authorities earlier, as can be seen from Annexure-A-2. In case it is found by the Screening Committee that the petitioner had actually possessed the qualification even prior to 1991, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefits particularly, since petitioner had been working as Junior Draughtsman which required the qualification of ITI. 4. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent to treat the petitioner as duly qualified Junior Draughtsman for regularization in the year,1995, in terms of the regularization made in the year, 1995, with all consequential benefits within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment. 3 5. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. “Copy dasti” (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (Justice V.K.Sharma) Judge. 22nd October, 2010 cr/ Pritam