IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 4271 of 2008 Date of decision: 10.11.2010 _________________________________________________________ Raj Kumar. .....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. R.D. Kaundal, Advocate vice counsel. For the respondents: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. V.K. Sharma, J (Oral). The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs vide para 7(1) and (2): “7(1) That the Respondents be directed to regularise the services of the applicant from the date he completed ten years of service under the respondents. 7(2) That the respondents be directed to pay the applicant arrears of wages @ Rs. 45.75 w.e.f. 1.1.1994.” 2. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, the following stand has been taken in paras 3, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.3(e): “3. The contents of the para-3, are incorrect, hence, denied. In fact the applicant was engaged as daily paid by the Deptt. on 15.2.85 and he has not completed the 10 years of continuous service by completing 240 days in each calendar year upto 31.3.95 as required as per the instructions of the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... Govt. dated 11.7.95. As such he is neither eligible for regularisation as per Govt. instructions dated 11.7.95 nor as per ratio laid down in Mool Raj Upadhyay's case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is further submitted that the earlier OA filed by the applicant alongwith others was treated as representation to the Secretary Hort. which was decided by the authority concerned accordingly (Annexure A-2). Keeping in view the instruction of the Govt. and decision of the Secretary Hort. the services of eligible daily paids has already been regularised by the Deptt. on the seniority basis as on 31.3.95 against the available vacant posts of Class-IV employees. So far as the question of enhanced wages w.e.f. 1.1.94 is concerned, the same can not be paid to the applicant as the enhanced wages has been sanctioned by the Govt. w.e.f. 1.4.95 and not from 1.1.94. 6.2 Admitted to the extent that the applicant was engaged as a daily paid labourer at P.C.D.O. Dhaulakuwan in the year 1985 and since then he is working as such till now with certain breaks time to time as per Annexure R-I. As the applicant does not complete the requisite service of 10 years by completing 240 days in each calender year, his services can not be regularised as per Govt. instructions dated 11.7.95. It is further stated that no application was ever received about the illness of the applicant prior/during/just after the recovery of illness. 6.3 Not admitted. As the applicant does not fulfill the requisite conditions of the Govt. for regularisation, his services could not be regularised. So far submission of medical certificate from the Private Medical practitioner by the applicant is concerned, the same was rejected by the respondents on the plea that the same was submitted only after the issue of govt. letter dated 11.7.95 which has been just managed by the applicant to maintain his seniority only at this belated stage. Besides this no information/record of the illness of applicant is available with the Incharge concerned, which can prove that the absence was due to illness. So far the earlier O.A. is concerned, the detailed position has been submitted in para-3 above. 6.3(e)The contention of the applicant is wrong that he had been paid the arrear of enhanced wages of ...3.. Rs. 45.75/- w.e.f. 12.1.96 as the same has been paid to all the daily paid labourers of the state w.e.f. 1.4.1995 as per the Govt. instructions dated 17.7.95. the same can not be paid to the daily paid labourers w.e.f. 1.1.94 as per govt. instructions in this regard. 3. The petition was filed way-back on 29.3.1997. Taking into consideration the intervening period, which is more than 13 years, it shall not be unsafe to infer that the petitioner might have been regularised by now and and further that he has been paid arrears w.e.f. 1.4.1995 and was not entitled for such arrears w.e.f. 1.1.994, as claimed by him. 4. In case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, it will be open to him to approach the first respondent, in which case the said respondent will look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law and justice and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed within another period of three months. 5. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 10th November, 2010 (virender)