IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 10002 of 2008 Decided on : 12.05.2011 Vishal Himachal Pradesh Chaturath Shareni Rajkiya Karamchari Association ..… Petitioner. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and another …… Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed on the following substantive prayers vide para 7(i) and (ii):- “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize t he present members of the applicant Association w.e.f. the date, they completed 10 yeas of continuous service and to grant the regular pay scale w.e.f the same date alongwith all consequential benefits. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 (ii) That consequently the respondents may further be directed to grant the pay scale of Rs.2520-4140, with the initial start of Rs. 2620, w.e.f 01-01-1996 alongwith all consequential benefits and interest to the present members of the applicant Association.” 2. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide paras 1 and 2 of the preliminary submissions:- “1. That the relief sought for in para 7(i) for “regularizing the members of the applicant-Association from the date they complete 10 years of service with regular pay scale alongwith all consequential benefits” is not maintainable. That OA filed by the applicants-Association is based on hypothetical pleas and is without any merit and the same deserves dismissal. The replying Respondents submits that the applicants were engaged as Chainmen on contingency paid basis (giving them a fixed amount) against contingency posts and the applicants continued in the same capacity, till such contingency posts were converted into regular posts, by the Govt. 3 Once the Govt. gave approval for converting such contingency paid posts into regular posts and the subsequent sanction for filling up these Regular sanctioned posts of Chainmen on 30-12-97 then the applicants were regularized as chainmen against regular posts in the pre revised scale of 770-1410 on 29.1.1998 and the revised scale of 2520-4140 on 27.2.1998, only prospectively, i.e. after the regular appointments of the applicants, against such posts and the claim for regularization from the date of completion of 10 years i.e. prior to 29.1.98/27.2.1998, is not maintainable. 2. That the claim for regularization, w.e.f. the date of completion of 10 years of continuous service, is not maintainable when, as per the OA No. PER(P-2)-(2)-5/86-III dated 11.7.1995 vide Annexure R-1, the regularization after 10 years, was “upto the number of posts available in the respective organization, for such regularization. Once, on the date of completion of 10 years of continuous service by the applicants-Association, “no regular posts were available”, the applicants were not eligible nor entitled for regularization. 4 However, after the issuance of the OM No. PET(AP)-C-B(2)-2/97 dated 11.11.1997 vide Annexure R-2, the Govt. provided for regularizing the contingent paid employees “hence forth either against vacant posts or by creation of posts” then, the Govt. created the regular posts of chainmen vide Annexure R-3, against which the applicants were regularized on 29.1.1998/27.2.1998 vide Annexure R-4 and R-5, in accordance with law and the claim for retrospective regularization, from the date of completion of 10 years in the absence of regular posts, of chainmen”, is neither maintainable on facts nor in law.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner- association submits at the very outset that the case of the members of the petitioner-association is covered under orders dated November 3, 1993, Annexure A-1 and June 7, 2002, Annexure A-3, passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. 4. In view of the above, if on facts, the case of the members of the petitioner-association is covered under the aforesaid orders dated November 3, 1993, Annexure A-1 and June 7, 2002, Annexure A-3, passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal and they are 5 similarly situate, they shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and benefit of the said orders shall be extended to them, within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment as also copies of aforesaid orders dated November 3, 1993, Annexure A-1 and June 7, 2002, Annexure A-3 of the Administrative Tribunal, by the members of the petitioner- association. Needless to say consequential benefits, if any, would follow. 5. The petition as also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 12th May, 2011. Lsp*