IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 4539 of 2008 (OA No. 1681 of 1997). Date of decision: July 16, 2009. Raj Kumar …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Virender Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General with Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General and Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). On transfer of cases from H.P. Administrative Tribunal after its abolition, O.A. No. 1681 of 1997, which was filed in the erstwhile Tribunal, has been registered as CWP(T) No. 4539 of 2008 in this court. 2. The only grievance, which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that two juniors of the petitioner namely Balak Ram and Hans Raj were regularized on 1.4.1998 as Mechanics, whereas the petitioner was regularized with effect from 1.1.1999 as Mechanic. It has been submitted that petitioner is entitled to regularization as Mechanic at-least with effect from Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… 1.4.1998 when his aforesaid two juniors were regularized as Mechanics. Annexure RX-II is the chart showing year-wise working days in respect of Raj Kumar daily waged mechanic. The perusal of Annexure RX-II indicates that he worked continuously from September 1988 to November 2002. In the year 1988 in Annexure RX-II, it has been shown that petitioner had worked only for 115 days as Junior Engineer (M). The department has committed mistake in counting the working days of the petitioner from September to December in the year 1988, whereas his working days should have been counted from September 1988 to August 1989 in order to see for how many days he had worked in a calendar year. In case the working days of the petitioner are counted in that manner, then it is clear that petitioner had worked continuously from September 1988 to November 2002 by completing at-least 240 days in each calendar year. 3. The respondents in the supplementary affidavit dated 29.3.2006 have stated that prior to June 1991, the petitioner had worked as Junior Engineer (Trial)/ Junior Engineer (Mechanic) purely on supervisory job. The posts of Junior Engineer and Mechanic are two different categories, so the name of the petitioner was not considered for regularization as Mechanic on 1.4.1998 with Balak Ram and Hans Raj. 4. There is no denial of the fact that Junior Engineer is a superior post in comparison to Mechanic. Annexure RX-II indicates that from September 1988 to June 1990 and thereafter from January 1991 to May 1991, the petitioner had worked as Junior Engineer …3… (Mechanical). This means, he had worked on superior post but he is not claiming any benefit for working as Junior Engineer (Mechanical). The claim of the petitioner is that he should be regularized as Mechanic prior to or at-least from the date when his juniors Balak Ram and Hans Raj were regularized. The perusal of Annexure RX-I indicates that Balak Ram was engaged on 26.6.1989 and Hans Raj on 26.4.1989 as Fitter Grade II. It has not been denied by either side that Fitter Grade II and Mechanic are equal posts. The petitioner was engaged from September 1988 onwards. It is thus clear that petitioner was senior to Balak Ram as well as Hans Raj. 5. In the affidavit dated 29.3.2006, it has further been stated that Balak Ram and Hans Raj were regularized on 1.4.1988 after nine years of service. The respondents in the another supplementary affidavit dated 7.5.2009 have stated that services of the petitioner were regularized with effect from 1.1.1999 on completion of ten years continuous service. It has not been explained why the services of Balak Ram and Hans Raj were regularized after completing nine years continuous service and that of petitioner after completing ten years continuous service. It has come on record that Hans Raj and Balak Ram were junior to the petitioners, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to regularization earlier to the regularization of Hans Raj and Balak Ram. 6. In light of above, the petitioner has made out a case for his regularization with effect from 1.4.1998 when his juniors Hans Raj and Balak Ram were regularized. The respondents are directed to consider the regularization of petitioner as Mechanic with all …4… consequential benefits with effect from 1.4.1998 when his juniors Hans Raj and Balak Ram were regularized as Mechanics within a period of two months from today. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. July 16, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.