IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 294 of 2003 Date of decision: 11.08.2008 Mohan Singh … Petitioner Versus H.P. State Electricity Board … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral): This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order of the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, dated 28.2.2003 passed in O.A. No. 553/1997. The undisputed facts giving rise to this case are that the petitioner who had obtained a diploma in Electrical Engineering was appointed as Foreman in the H.P. State Electricity Board, hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Board’ in May, 1986. Vide Memorandum dated 8.2.1996, the applicant was offered the post of Lineman on regular basis. The applicant approached the learned Tribunal with the plea that since he had been initially appointed as Foreman and had worked as such for ten years, he should be regularized as Foreman and not as Lineman. The learned Tribunal rejected his plea on the ground that in 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 the settlement arrived at between the employees of the Board and ‘the Board’, as recorded in the Apex Court on 10.5.1991 in writ petition No. 398 of 1988 and connected matters, the Board was required to regularize the services of the petitioner employees on completion of 5 years service. However, in the settlement itself there was a caveat that ‘the Board’ would not create any fresh post and regularization would take place as and when post(s) would be available. Mr. Surender Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Tribunal has misdirected itself in applying the aforesaid judgment. He submits that the order of the Court clearly shows that the said judgment and the settlement arrived in the said judgment is applicable only to the existing employees who were the petitioners before the Supreme Court and not to other employees. We have gone through the operative portion of the judgment and we find that the Apex Court has observed that Memorandum of Settlement has been signed by the parties and their respective counsel and has further directed that the terms of settlement are applicable to ”the existing employees who are the present petitioners”. It is, therefore, apparent that the general directions given in the said case are not applicable to the petitioner. Even if we do not take into consideration the aforesaid judgment in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others, (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1, it will not be possible to grant the relief which the petitioner has prayed for. In Uma Devi’s case, the Apex Court has clearly held that the employees who have been initially granted employment in violation of or contrary to the existing Recruitment and Promotion Rules cannot be ordered to be regularized. 3 Therefore, this Court cannot give a direction for regularization of an employee from a particular date. In any event, the petitioner services have been regularized and we have been informed that he has been promoted as Assistant Engineer. Therefore, we find no merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed accordingly. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge August 11, 2008 ( V.K. Ahuja ), (BSS) Judge 4