IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 11565 of 2008 Date of decision: 10.08.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Kultar Chand. .....Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Bhim Raj, Advocate vice Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. AG with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. AG. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayer: “That the respondents may kindly be directed to appoint the applicant against a work charged post of Bill Clerk and then regularize the applicant as such on the basis of the seniority of the applicant as Bill Clerk (w.e.f. 1.1.1995 till date) the date the applicant has completed a requisite period working as Bill Clerk in accordance with the latest policy framed by the respondent State alongwith all consequential benefits.” 2. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide paras 6(iii), (v), (vi) and 8 on merits: “6(iii) In reply to this para it is respectfully submitted that the applicant had worked as a bill clerk w.e.f. 1.1.95 till his regularization on 5.12.02 but prior to that he had worked as a beldar and bill distributor and he was appointed as beldar as per the policy of the respondent state vide order dated 5.12.02, a copy of which is annexed by the applicant with his petition as Annexure A-2. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... 6(v) Contents of this sub para admitted to the extent so for the work being extracted during the different period from the applicant is concerned and rest of the contents of the sub para that applicant was required to be regularized as bill clerk is concerned are not admitted. The applicant has been regularized strictly according to the policy of the respondent state formulated pursuant to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhayay's case. 6(vi) In reply to this sub para it is submitted that applicant had completed 8 years of continuous service as a bill clerk w.e.f. 1.1.95 till his regularization on 5.12.02 and thereafter he was regularized as a beldar as per the policy of the respondent state and applicant joined as such very gladly. It is wrong on the part of the applicant to allege that he was eligible/entitled for regularization as a bill clerk. It is further submitted that all the daily rated workmen have been regularized from time to time as per the policy of the respondent state applicable at the relevant time and the applicant has also been regularized as per the policy of the respondent state as a beldar which post he had accepted very gladly as would be evident from the joining report as such no discrimination has been made with the applicant. 8. In reply to this para it is submitted that applicant has been regularized as beldar strictly according to the policy of the respondent state and he cannot be regularized as a bill clerk contrary to the policy. It is further submitted that since the post of bill distributor is clubbed with the category of beldar vide notification dated 14.11.95 and pay scale of both categories i.e. beldar and bill distributor are same as such bill are being also got distributed from the beldar and some time the present applicant collect the water bill also.” 3. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, he may certainly point out the same before respondent No. 2/competent authority by way of appropriate representation supported by documents, if any, alongwith copy of this judgment within two months from today, who shall consider the same and ...3... take a final decision in the matter within further three months in accordance with law, particularly the law laid down by this Court in Gauri Dutt & Ors. vs. State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366. 4. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 10th August, 2011 (virender)