IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 3985 of 2008 (OA No. 1 of 2003) Date of decision: 21.12.2009 Raj Gopal ….. Petitioner. Vs. H.P. State Forest Corporation & Anr. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Kuldip Singh, Judge( Oral) The learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the claim of the petitioner only to the extent that the direction be given to the respondents to decide the representations Annexure A-4 dated 23.5.1998 and Annexure A-8 dated 20.6.1999 for regularizing the service of the petitioner as helper within some time bound frame and implement the decision if it is decided in favour of petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Chowkidar on daily wage basis in Chopal Forest Working Division in April, 1985. He was appointed as helper on daily wage basis on 7.3.1989 vide Annexure A-1 and he served the Corporation as helper continuously. The Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. …2… petitioner was regularized as Chowkidar vide memorandum dated 31.12.1997 Annexure A-3. 2. The petitioner represented to the Director (South) of the Corporation on 23.5.1998 vide Annexure A-4 for regularization of the services of the petitioner as helper. The representation of petitioner for regularization as helper was forwarded by Director (South) to Divisional Manager, Nerwa on 20.6.1998 vide Annexure A-5. The Director (South) vide letter dated 16.1.1999 Annexure A-6 had asked the report. The petitioner on 28.6.1999 vide Annexure A-8 had submitted another representation for regularization of his services as helper. The Divisional Manager, Nerwa had sent the report to Director (South) on 7.8.1999 vide Annexure A-10. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the representations made by the petitioner for regularization of his services as helper have not been decided by the respondents. It has also been submitted that the Anomaly Committee vide Annexure B attached with Annexure A dated 5.10.2000 filed alongwith application dated 28.9.2000 has also observed that the petitioner has been regularized as Chowkidar. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is working as helper since 7.3.1989 but he has been wrongly regularized as Chowkidar on 31.12.1997. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that vide Policy Annexure R/1 a daily wage worker, who has worked for less than 10 years on a higher pay scale he will be considered for regularization by combining the service both in lower scale and higher scale but he shall be regularized on a lower post because for …3… regularization on a higher post 10 years complete service is essential. The Policy referred by learned counsel for the respondents is of no help to respondents. The petitioner was appointed helper on 7.3.1989. He continued as such and had completed 10 years on 7.3.1999 but on 31.12.1997 he was regularized as Chowkidar. The petitioner attained eligibility for regularization of helper on 7.3.1999 as per Policy of respondents. The simple case of the petitioner is that he has been working as helper in the office of the Corporation since 7.3.1989 and therefore, he is entitled to regularization as helper as per Policy of the corporation. The Corporation has wrongly regularized him as Chowkidar. The petitioner has submitted representations Annexure A-4 and Annexure A-8. 5. There is no denial of the fact that petitioner has been working as helper with the Corporation since 7.3.1989 vide Annexure A-1. In reply the respondents have stated that as per seniority list Annexure A-2 the seniority of the petitioner in the category of helper was counted w.e.f. 8.3.1989 and the initial date of engagement of Chowkidar has been shown as 1.4.1985 correctly. It is thus clear that even the respondents have admitted that petitioner is working as helper with the Corporation since 7.3.1989. 6. In light of the above discussion, the respondents are directed to decide the representations Annexure A-4 dated 23.5.1998 and Annexure A-8 dated 20.6.1999 by speaking order within two months from the date the certified copy of this order is submitted by the petitioner to the respondents and implement the decision in further two months if the representations of the petitioner are …4… accepted. In case, the decision goes against the petitioner then the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the Court against such decision. Copy Dasti on usual terms December. 21, 2009 ( Kuldip Singh ) (sks) Judge.