IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 5474 of 2008 (OA (D) No. 11/1998) Judgment reserved on : 3.11.2010 Date of decision : 9.11.2010. Rashpal Singh …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ....Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. for respondents No.1 & 2. Kuldip Singh, Judge The petitioner has prayed mainly the following reliefs in the petition:- (a) The services of the applicant should be regularised as a male social worker/Clerk w.e.f. November, 1984, and all the consequential benefits be allowed to the applicant. (b) The applicant be placed senior to respondent No.3 in the seniority list. (c) The appointment of respondent No.3 as a Clerk/male social worker be quashed/set aside as being illegal, null and void, against the principles of natural justice. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 (d) Any other equitable and legal relief to which the applicant may be found entitled including the relief of arrears of pay/emoluments etc. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is at present posted as Clerk in the office of Child Development Project Officer, Rait, District Kangra. He was appointed as Clerk on 1.11.1981 and since then he had been performing the duties of Clerk. 3. The petitioner vide office order dated 18.10.1984 of District Welfare Officer, Kangra at Dharamshala was allowed to look after the office work with respect to pension cases of Dehra and Kangra Tehsil. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to perform the duties of male social worker under the District Welfare Officer, Kangra at Dharamshala in November and December, 1984. 4. The respondent No.3 was appointed as Clerk in the year 1984. The respondent No.3 is the real brother of K.D.Sharma, the then District Welfare Officer, Kangra at Dharamshala. The appointment of respondent No.3 as Clerk is illegal, he did not possess the requisite qualifications for appointment as Clerk. 5. The petitioner has performed the duties of a Clerk at Balika Ashram, Pragpur in January, February, 1985. The services of the petitioner were regularised on 13.9.1985 as Peon even though he was performing the duties of Clerk. The regularisation of petitioner as Peon is against law, facts and justice. The petitioner should have been regularised as Clerk but the petitioner was promoted as Clerk on 15.2.1992 and was posted in the office of District Welfare Officer, Keylong, Lahaul and Spiti. On 28.2.1992 the 3 petitioner was posted as Clerk at Child Development Project Officer, Baijnath. 6. On 9.12.1996 the respondent No.3 was regularised as Male Social Worker w.e.f. February, 1985. The order dated 9.12.1996 is wrong, illegal. The petitioner had vested right in preference to respondent No.3 for regularisation as Male Social Worker w.e.f. November, 1984. The petitioner is senior to respondent No.3 in the category of Male Social Worker inasmuch as the petitioner had performed the duties of Male Social Worker in November, December, 1984, he was also given the pay of Male Social Worker for that period. The order dated 9.12.1996 is liable to be quashed. The petitioner had filed representation dated 24.4.1997 to respondent No.2 but that representation has not been decided, in these circumstances, the petition was filed. 7. The respondents No.1 and 2 have filed the reply in which it has been stated that the petitioner was appointed as Peon on daily wages in the office of District Welfare Officer, Kangra at Dharamshala. The petitioner was not appointed as Clerk. The District Welfare officers are not authorized to issue experience certificate to a person for working as Clerk. The petitioner was assigned the work of pension cases of Dehra and Kangra Tehsils and he was paid the salary as Male Social Worker for November, December, 1984. The respondent No.3 was appointed Male Social Worker for 90 days and subsequently his services were regularised vide letter dated 27.9.1994 in accordance with rules. 8. The petitioner was initially appointed as Peon in the Department on daily wages. Lateron the Department proposed to fill 4 up the vacant posts of Peon on regular basis. The petitioner was working as Class-IV since 1984 on daily wages, his name was considered for regularisation as Peon. It has been denied that petitioner had worked as Clerk since the year 1981. 9. The respondent No.3 had filed Original Application No.585 of 1994 in the erstwhile Tribunal for regularisation retrospectively. The case of the respondent No.3 for regularisation as Male Social Worker was taken up with the Government and the Government accorded approval for regularisation of services of respondent No.3 in accordance with rules. In these circumstances, the respondent No.3 was regularised as per rules. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Annexur A-1 is the experience certificate dated 12.10.1984 showing that the petitioner had worked as Part Time Clerk w.e.f.1.11.1981. The experience certificate Annexure A-1 is not in consonance with the pleaded case of the petitioner for appointment as Clerk. The petitioner has not pleaded that he was appointed as part time Clerk, hence experience certificate Annexure A-1 is of no help to petitioner. 11. The petitioner vide office order dated 13.9.1985 was regularised as Class-IV. He was promoted as Clerk vide office order dated 28.2.1992 Annexure A-4. The petition was filed on 8.1.1998. The petitioner by his conduct has also accepted his regularisation on Class-IV post which was made vide office order dated 13.9.1985 and lateron his promotion as Clerk vide office order dated 28.2.1992. It is too late for the petitioner to say that his regularisation on Class-IV post vide office order dated 13.9.1985 and lateron his promotion as Clerk w.e.f. 28.2.1992 are wrong. The petitioner has 5 placed nothing on record to show that he was appointed as Clerk on 1.11.1981. On the contrary, it emerges from the record that the petitioner worked as daily wager on Class-IV post, he was regularised on Class-IV post on 13.9.1985. He was lateron promoted as Clerk on 28.2.1992. 12. The case of respondent No.3 is entirely on different footing. It emerges from the record that he filed O.A. No. 585/1994 in the erstwhile Tribunal. The Government vide letter dated 18.8.1994 decided to regularise the respondent No.3 and thereafter he was appointed as Male Social Worker and was posted as such in the office of District Welfare Officer, Kangra at Dharamshala vide letter dated 27.9.1994. The petitioner has not challenged the letter dated 18.8.1994 of the government nor the Directorate order dated 27.9.1994 appointing the petitioner as Male Social Worker. The letter dated 8.12.1996 Annexure A-5 is a consequential letter. 13. The respondent No.3 was appointed vide Directorate order dated 27.9.1994 in view of decision of the Government dated 18.8.1994. There is not a whisper in the petition against the Government decision dated 18.8.1994 and Directorate order dated 27.9.1994 appointing respondent No.3 as Male Social Worker. Thus, taken from any angle, there is no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Kuldip Singh ), November 9, 2010. Judge. (GR)