IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 11930 of 2008. Decided on: 18.5.2011. ___________________________________________________________ Yudhvir Singh. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7 (i), (ii) and (iii):- (i) The respondents may be ordered to give the work charge status w.e.f. 1.4.1998 and regularization to the applicant w.e.f. 1.4.1999 (and not on notional basis w.e.f. 5.12.2002 after 15 years of service) on the post of Pump Operator with all the benefits incidental thereof, such as arrears of pay, seniority and interest etc. Alternatively, the similar order which was passed by this Hon’ble Court in OA No. 150/1996 titled as Gurnam Singh vs. State of H.P. & others, may also be passed in the present case. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to regularize the service of the applicant after creating a post of Pump Operator with all benefits from due date. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 (iii) That the respondents may be directed to give the work charge status to the applicant exactly after 10 years of service. 2. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide para 6 (I):- “6 (I). That the contents of this para are matter of record. In fact he worked as Pump Operator w.e.f. 2/91 and worked as such till his regularization. It is further submitted that service of the applicant has been regularized as per policy applicable to the applicant at the relevant time. It is further submitted that the policy formulated under the order of Hon’ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhya was applicable only upto 1.1.1998. Thereafter, the policy of regularization being an executive function of Government to its workmen underwent a change from time to time. It is denied that the applicant was entitled to work charge status w.e.f. 1.4.1998. In fact, there are no posts of Pump Operator of work charged. The post of Pump Operator is only regular post, hence there is no question of considering him for work charged status. However, according to the policy applicable to the applicant in December 2002, the applicant was not eligible for regularization being unqualified. Never the less the service of the applicant has been regularized by respondent-State after seeking the relaxation in the R&P Rules. It is submitted that the applicant was unqualified person and as per law and rules he was not entitled to be considered for regularization but the department has done a favour to him by taking the case of relaxation in his qualification to the competent authority. Therefore as per rules the unqualified person cannot be 3 considered for appointment/promotion till relaxation is granted by the competent authority. The applicant being unqualified the Government granted relaxation only after giving 3 months departmental training from Polytechnic Institute and allowed regularization only on its successful completion. Still the Government has again given the applicant favour by granting him notional benefit w.e.f. December, 2002 when his junior qualified joined. Moreover, the applicant was offered the post and he accepted the terms and conditions and joined without protest. Therefore, he has no ground and causes of action to file and maintain the present O.A. Therefore, the present O.A. is an abuse of process of law as such the O.A. may kindly be dismissed with exemplary costs.” 3. It is further averred vide para 2 of the short reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in terms of order dated 29.3.2011:- “2. That in compliance to the aforesaid order, it is submitted that the applicant has initially been engaged on daily wages basis as Beldar w.e.f. 13.8.1988 to 31.1.1989, Chowkidar w.e.f. 6.2.1989 to 6.11.1989 and w.e.f. 7.11.1989 onward as Pump Operator under IPH Division, Indora and has completed 240 days only w.e.f. 1.1.1990 as Pump Operator. Therefore, he is entitled to seniority w.e.f. 1.1.1990. The petitioner has been regularized later on vide order dated 25.3.2008 (Annexure RA-1) in terms of judgment passed in Gauri Dutt’s case on completion of 10 years continuous service w.e.f. 1.1.2000. The man days’ chart of the 4 petitioner is hereby annexed as Annexure RA- II. Therefore, in view of the subsequent events he has been regularized as per Gauri Dutt’s case and paid arrear and accepted the same, as such the present petition has become infructuous, therefore, the CWP may be dismissed as having become infructuous.” 4. It is seen from the records that representation dated 10.1.2005, Annexure A-1, submitted by the petitioner to respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 is yet to be decided. 5. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider the aforesaid representation dated 10.1.2005, Annexure A-1, submitted by the petitioner and take a final decision on the same within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so, desired. Needless to say that consequential benefits, if any, would follow the decision on the representation. 6. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. May 18, 2011. (cr)