IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP NO. 861 of 2003 Date of decision: 15.5.2008 Santosh Kumari …Petitioner Vs State of H.P. and others ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.M. Bisht, Dy. AG with Mr. Rajesh Mandhora, Dy. A.G. R.B. Misra, J. (Oral) Heard Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. R.M. Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. The present writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 18th April, 2002 passed in O. A (M) 42/1996, whereby the petitioner was treated to be appointed on contingent basis vide order dated 20th October, 2000 in reference to the statement of learned Additional Advocate General. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?. -2- It appears that the petitioner had consistently claimed that her appointment was made in the year 1984. However, the respondent authorities have shown the petitioner to have been appointed on 15th September, 1989. The petitioner had all along been claiming that she was senior to the other persons who had been named in the list circulated on 1.2.1996 i.e. Annexure P-1 to the writ petition. It appears that in the month of February, 1996 for regularizing the daily wager/part time employees, the criteria was length of service and from 13.9.1996 for regularization of daily wagers/part time employees of Class IV Category was different. The petitioner had all along been claiming that if her services were said to be of the year 1984, then for the purpose of regularization, her case could have been considered keeping in view the provisions of regularization prevailing in February, 1996. However, in view of the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner’s service was said to be acknowledged from 1984, she was conferred status of contingent employee in the year 2000. Even that aspect was also being controverted by the State Government. However, learned Tribunal took even the fluctuating stand of respondents about giving status to the petitioner in the year 2002 as correct and has passed the impugned order dated 18.4.2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice different documents and materials which are part of the record and has tried to impress this court that since first prayer in OA 42/96 was not pressed, however, when second prayer was pressed, then learned Tribunal ought to have allowed the petitioner to get the benefit of regularization as per norms prevailing in February, 1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that still she is not claiming any seniority over the persons who were juniors at relevant -3- time in 1984 and were given status of contingent employees prior to the petitioner. However, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, treating the petitioner to have been deployed in 1984, petitioner’s case could have been considered from the date prior to 2000. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, factual error emanating from the record had taken place in the impugned order dated 18.4.2002, as such the same has to be rectified and proper relief has to be given. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has invited our attention to the affidavit dated 27.11.2003 referred in the present writ petition and has emphatically submitted that this court, should not give any indulgence to rectify the factual mistake, if any, in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents. After going through the records, we are of the considered view that the factual aspects are being disputed by the parties. Since the factual controversy and disputed facts cannot be adjudicated in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the error apparent, if any, emanating from the record could only be rectified in exercise of the power of review. From this point of view, without expressing anything on the merits of the case, we are disposing of the present writ petition with observations, that the petitioner, if approaches before the learned Tribunal for relief by way of review petition, the learned Tribunal shall expedite the review petition and while considering the review petition, delay and latches shall not come in the way as the matter has all along been persuaded before this court. The learned Tribunal shall dispose of the proposed review petition, if so preferred expeditiously within three months from such presentation on the basis of materials and records before us or any material which may be proposed to be brought before the learned Tribunal. In view of above, the writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( R.B. Misra ), J. ( Sanjay Karol ), J. 15th May, 2008 (sl)