IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 11564 of 2008 Date of decision: 3.12.2010 Shamsher Singh ….. Petitioner Vs. State of H.P.& others …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, J(Oral). The petitioner has filed the present petition for a direction to respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of his joining with a further direction to the respondents to release the arrears of salary due and admissible to the petitioner. 2. The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had joined the service of the respondents on 29.5.1984 on ad-hoc basis in the office of Panchayat Samiti, Rait, Tehsil Shahpur, District Kangra. The service of the petitioner was terminated vide office order dated 14.1.1985 Annexure A-2. The Under Secretary (Panchayat) to the Govt. of H.P. vide office order dated 8.2.1985 Annexure A-3 had again re-appointed the petitioner as Panchayat Secretary on ad-hoc basis. It has been submitted that since then the petitioner is continuing as Panchayat Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… Secretary. It has also been submitted that petitioner has been given annual increments since June 1991 and the Provident Fund was started in the year 1998. The respondents have regularised the Panchayat Secretaries but the petitioner who joined the service of the respondents has not been regularised till date. The petitioner has completed more than 20 years of service. 3. The respondents had ordered recovery of annual increments given to the petitioner in the year 1999. This order was challenged by the petitioner in the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 20.5.1999 had set aside the order of recovery of increments. The petitioner is entitled to regularization as Panchayat Secretary. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied instructions dated 30.11.1996 regarding regularization of services of ad-hoc appointees. 4. The respondents have contested the petition by filing reply. It has been stated that petitioner is an employee of Panchayat Samiti which is an autonomous body and can take its own independent decision. The name of the petitioner was not forwarded by the Panchayat Samiti for regularization, as such he was not given any benefit. It has been stated that annual increment and subscription of the GPF was inadvertently given to petitioner due to clerical mistake. The petitioner cannot claim regularization from the department because he is not an employee of the department. 5. The petitioner had filed rejoinder and reiterated his case projected in the petition. It has been submitted that petitioner is entitled to regularization from the respondent department as the petitioner is an employee of the respondents and the respondents have regularised …3… many persons who were appointed by the respondent-State on ad-hoc basis after the petitioner. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. No doubt initially the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Secretary by Administrator, Panchayati Samiti, Rait, District Kangra vide memo dated 29.5.1984. The services of the petitioner were terminated vide office order dated 14.1.1985 by Under Secretary (Panchayat) to the Govt. of H.P. This apart the petitioner was re-appointed as Panchayat Secretary on ad-hoc basis by the Under Secretary ( Panchayat) to the Govt. of H.P vide office order dated 8.2.1985. It is too late for respondents to say that the petitioner is not their employee in view of office order dated 8.2.1985. The petitioner has been given annual increments since June 1991 and Provident Fund was started in the year 1998. The petitioner has relied instructions dated 30.11.1996 of the Government vide which it has been decided that the services of all ad-hoc employees in Class-1,II,III & IV shall be regularised from the date of issue of these instructions subject to the fulfilling of norms/terms and conditions mentioned in the instructions dated 30.11.1996. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner fulfills the terms and conditions mentioned in the instructions dated 30.11.1996. In view of instructions dated 30.11.1996, the petitioner has made out a case for consideration of his case for regularization by respondents No.1,2/competent authority. 7. Thus, in view of above discussion, the petition is allowed. The respondents No.1,2/competent authority are directed to consider the case of petitioner for regularization as Panchayat Secretary in …4… accordance with instructions dated 30.11.1996 within three months from the date of supply of copy of this judgment to respondents No.1,2/competent authority by the petitioner in one month and the respondents No.1,2/competent authority shall implement the decision so taken in another one month with all consequential benefits. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s) if any. December 3, 2010 (Kuldip Singh), (sks) Judge.