IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 177 of 2008. Reserved on : 02.06.2011. Decided on: 15.06.2011. _____________________________________________________ Om Chand. …Petitioner. -Versus- The State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Petitioner was engaged as Beldar in the year 1986. He worked for 335 days in 1986, initially as Beldar for 271 days and thereafter as Chowkidar for 62 days. Thereafter, he worked as Water Guard for 31 days, Chowkidar for 179 days, Helper for 24 days and Beldar for 122 days in 1987. He worked for 356 days in 1987. He worked as Helper/Beldar for 179 days and Chowkidar for 92 days in 1988. He has completed 271 days in 1988. Thereafter, he worked as Beldar for 365 days in 1989. He worked as Beldar/Water Guard for 100 days, Chowkidar for 61 days and Complaint Attendant for 184 days in 1990. He worked for 345 days in 1990. Thereafter, the petitioner has been continuously working as Complaint Attendant and has completed 304 days in 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - 1992, 300 days in 1992, 335 days in 1993 and 335 days in 1994. State Government took a decision, whereby the services of the petitioner were regularized as Complaint Attendant w.e.f. 21.01.1995. However, it transpired later on that since the petitioner has worked continuously as Complaint Attendant w.e.f. 1991 and has completed 10 years’ service with 240 days in each calendar year in 2000, his services could only be regularized in 2001. A committee was constituted to scrutinize the record vide letter dated 02.02.2002. The committee submitted its report and found that the petitioner has completed 10 years’ continuous service with 240 days in each calander year on 31.12.2000 as Complaint Attendant and he was wrongly appointed against the higher grade instead of lower grade of Beldar. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 17.08.2002 why his services should not be regularized as Complaint Attendant w.e.f. 01.01.2001 instead of 21.01.1995. Petitioner filed a detailed reply to the same on 31.08.2002. Thereafter, vide office order dated 29.06.2007, the order dated 21.01.1995 was withdrawn and the same was modified to the extent that services of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f. 01.01.2001 on the same terms and conditions. Petitioner assailed this order by way of O.A. No. 249 of 2007. The same was directed to be treated as representation to the Engineer-in-Chief, I. & P.H. Department, Shimla. The same was rejected by the Engineer-in-Chief, I. & P.H. Department, Shimla on 07.11.2007. 2. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that a regular inquiry was required to be instituted against the petitioner to determine whether he had - 3 - completed 10 years’ continuous service as Complaint Attendant on the date of his regularization, i.e., 21.01.1995 or not. He then argued that the impugned action has been taken after a gap of almost 7 years. 3. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has vehemently argued that the regularization of the petitioner was contrary to law. According to him, the petitioner had only worked for three years at the time when his services were wrongly regularized as Bill Clerk/Complaint Attendant. He further argued that the petitioner has only completed 10 years’ continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year on 01.01.2001 as Complaint Attendant and in these circumstances, after accepting the recommendations of the committee, which was constituted to scrutinize the record of petitioner and similarly situate persons, the impugned decision has been taken to regularize the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2001 as Complaint Attendant by withdrawing the earlier order dated 21.01.1995. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. It is apparent from the pleadings, more particularly, Ex. P-1 that the petitioner had only started working as Complaint Attendant w.e.f. 1990. He has worked for 184 days in 1990. He has also worked as Complaint Attendant in 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994, whereby he has completed 304, 300, 335 and 335 days, respectively. Petitioner has worked as Complaint Attendant w.e.f. 1991, whereby for the first time he has completed more than 240 days in a block of twelve calendar months. He could only be regularized/conferred work charge status after completion of 10 - 4 - years’ continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year as Complaint Attendant/Bill Clerk. Since the petitioner has started working as Complaint Attendant in 1991, he has completed 10 years’ continuous service in 2001. It is, thus, evident that the order dated 21.01.1995, whereby the petitioner has been regularized as Complaint Attendant/Bill Clerk, was wrong. A show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner on 17.08.2002, after perusing the record of the committee, which was constituted to look into the matter of petitioner and similarly situate persons. He filed a detailed reply to the same on 31.08.2002. Thereafter, after taking into consideration the averments contained in the reply to show-cause notice, the order dated 21.01.1995 has been withdrawn and modified to the extent whereby the petitioner has now been regularized as Complaint Attendant w.e.f. 01.01.2001. Petitioner was engaged in 1986 and has worked in various capacities, i.e, Beldar, Chowkidar, Water Guard, Helper and Complaint Attendant up to 1990. In sequel to the orders passed by the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 248 of 2007, the petitioner has been heard in person, as is evident from order dated 07.11.2007. The Engineer-in-Chief while passing the order dated 07.11.2007, has perused the service record of the petitioner in Sundernagar Circle. It is evident from the order that incorrect position of mandays was placed before the screening committee, which led to the regularization of the petitioner on 21.01.1995. Since the petitioner has started working on the higher post w.e.f. 1990-1991 and has completed 240 days in a block of twelve calendar months in 1991, there is no illegality in the office orders - 5 - dated 29.06.2007 and 07.11.2007. Petitioner has been issued show-cause notice, to which he filed reply. Petitioner has also been heard in person by the Engineer-in-Chief in sequel to the order passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 248 of 2007. The office orders dated 29.06.2007 and 07.11.2007 are detailed and reasoned. Petitioner has not placed any contemporaneous material on record to establish that he has started working as Complaint Attendant anterior to 1990-1991. Petitioner has been wrongly regularized and this mistake has been rectified by the department by adhearing to the principles of natural justice. It is also apparent from the record that similarly situate persons have also filed Original Applications bearing O.A.(M) No. 291/1996 and O.A.(M) No. 292/1996 based on same and similar facts, which were rejected by the learned Tribunal on 14.11.2007. Learned Tribunal has, rather, noted while dismissing the Original Applications that they had committed grave misconduct/offence of fabricating record and then concealing these facts in the original applications. In view of this, the costs of `5000/- was also imposed while dismissing the Original Applications. It is easily discernable from the record that at the time when the case of petitioner was recommended by the screening committee for regularization in 1995, the true facts were not taken into consideration. The committee has not even cared to go into the contents of the mandays chart before considering the case of petitioner and similarly situate persons. It was duty cast upon the respondents to screen the candidates in accordance with law and also by looking into the mandays chart category-wise. In view of this, no regular inquiry, as argued by Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned - 6 - counsel for the petitioner, was required to be instituted. The office orders dated 29.06.2007 and 07.11.2007 have been passed in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge June 15, 2011. (bhupender) - 7 - `