Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.6882 & 6883 of 2010. Date of Decision: September 22, 2011. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.6882 of 2010 Naresh Kumar. ……… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …….. Respondents. 2. CWP No.6883 of 2010 Surinder Kumar. ……… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …….. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate General for respondent No.1. Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Rakesh Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Surinder Singh, J (oral): Since both the aforesaid petitions are similar in nature and the relief claimed is the same, therefore, taken up together, for its decision. 2. By means of the aforesaid petitions, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to issue direction to respondent No.2, - 2 - The Himachal Pradesh Marketing Board, to regularize their services as ‘Auction Recorder’ with effect from 20th January, 1998 or alternatively from the year 2003 with all consequential benefits instead of regularizing them with effect from 1.11.2007. 3. In fact, respondent No.2 is a statutory body constituted under ‘The Himachal Pradesh Agricultural & Horticultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 2005 (Act 20 of 2005)’, thus is a State instrumentality. The said Board is competent under Section 9(3) of the Act ibid to appoint its employees after seeking approval of the State Government. The State Government has absolute control on respondent No.2. They have also framed the Recruitment & Promotion Rules of respective categories of services by getting the approval of the State Government. 4. In brief facts giving a cause to file present petitions are that the petitioner in CWP No.6882 of 2010 was engaged initially a daily wage worker on 2.11.1986, whereas petitioner in CWP No.6883 of 2010 was engaged as such on 8.5.1987. Both the petitioners remained as such till 17.9.1993. Thereafter, - 3 - they worked as daily-waged ‘Auction Recorder’ and the petitioner in CWP No.6882 of 2010 was paid the approved wages as per Annexure PA dated 30.7.1993 and petitioner in CWP No.6883 of 2010 was paid the same vide Annexure PB dated 15.9.1993, issued by the Executive Officer of respondent No.3. The respective petitioners have been working in the Marketing Committee Kangra as ‘Auction Recorder’ (daily wage worker @ `33/- & `68/- per day] since November, 1986 & March, 1987 respectively. 5. The State Government formulated and notified Policy of regularization of daily wage workers, vide Annexure R-2 dated 23.9.1998, which provides for the regularization of the daily wage workers after completion of 9 years of continuous service, with minimum 240 days in a calendar year as on 31.3.1998 against the vacant posts, subject to observance of all codal formalities. If the daily waged worker had completed less than 9 years on a higher pay-scale, he was to be considered for regularization by combining the service both in lower scale and higher scale, but was to be regularized on lower post. Since the petitioners completed 7 years as Class-IV and 5 - 4 - years respectively as daily waged ‘Auction Recorder’, they were to be considered for regularization, thus offered appointment on regular basis as against the available sanctioned and vacant post of Peon-cum-Chowkidar, Class-IV and necessary orders were issued vide orders dated 20.1.1998, but this offer was declined by the petitioners, on the ground that they had worked as ‘Auction Recorder’ on daily waged basis. Thus, filed Original Applications in the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal, which were transferred to this Court on its abolition and registered as CWP (T) No.4876 of 2008 and CWP (T) No.4875 of 2008 respectively. Vide orders dated 13.7.2009, both the petitions were disposed of with direction to the petitioners to make representation to respondent No.2 for its consideration. In compliance thereof, the petitioners filed representation and the services of the petitioners were regularized as ‘Auction Recorder’ when the vacancies accrued on 1.11.2007, as per Annexure R-4 in both the petitions. In the meantime, Recruitment & Promotion Rules were also amended for the said post, whereby the essential qualification - 5 - for the post of ‘Auction Recorder’ was kept B.Sc. (Agriculture), whereas both the petitioners were only matriculate. Since the petitioners had work experience, thus due benefit was given to them. Since their cases were considered as per old criteria/ rules, as per judgment dated 13.7.2009 passed by this Court (Annexure PC), as such they were regularized w.e.f. 1.11.2007. 6. According to Shri Surender Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, they would feel satisfied in case their cases are re-considered for the regularization prior to 1.11.2007 under the old criteria/ rules in case of availability of substantive vacancies of ‘Auction Recorder’. The learned counsels for the respondents have no objection in reconsidering the matter. 7. Therefore, in view of above, there will be a direction to respondent No.2 to re-examine both the matters at their own level to find out, if there were substantive vacancies for the regularization of the petitioners as ‘Auction Recorder’ between September, 2003 to 31st October, 2007. In case the substantive vacancy/ vacancies is/are available for - 6 - the petitioner(s), the respondent No.2 shall consider and pass orders within three months from the day of production of the copy of this judgment by according the benefit as aforesaid in order of seniority. 8. With the above direction, both the writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Surinder Singh) Judge September 22, 2011. (Pds)