IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 15848/2008 Decided on:15.7.2011 _____________________________________________ Ravinder Kumar. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was engaged as Surveyor in the month of September, 1989. His case was recommended for regularization as Junior Engineer on 26.10.1999. However, fact of the matter is that petitioner was not regularized. According to the reply filed by the respondent-State since the petitioner had not completed 240 days in the year 1994 as Junior Engineer, his case for regularization could not be considered. The fact of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 the matter is that petitioner has been regularized as Junior Engineer on 11.4.2005. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure R-II. According to the contents of Annexure R-II (mandays’ chart), petitioner has worked as Surveyor with effect from September, 1989 to April, 1994. Thereafter, he was engaged as Junior Engineer. It is evident from Annexure R-II that the petitioner has submitted medical certificate with effect from 14.9.1994 to 9.12.1994. However, no material has been placed on record whether the application preferred by the petitioner for medical leave was sanctioned or not. It is in these circumstances petitioner could not complete 240 days as Junior Engineer in the year 1994. If the medical leave had been sanctioned with effect from 14.9.1994 to 9.12.1994 in favour of the petitioner, he would have completed 240 days as Junior Engineer in the year 1994 itself. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan has strenuously argued that the decision was required to be taken on the medical leave submitted for the period with effect from 14.9.1994 to 9.12.1994. According to him, if the medical leave had been sanctioned, petitioner would 3 have completed 240 days as Junior Engineer in the year 1994. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate has vehemently argued that since the petitioner has worked for 162 days as Junior Engineer in the year 1994, his case could not be considered for regularization as Junior Engineer with effect from 1994. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings meticulously. Petitioner is duly qualified. He was engaged initially as Surveyor with effect from September, 1989 to April, 1994. He had been continuously working as Junior Engineer with effect from 1994 to 2001 as per Annexure R-II, except for the short break in the year 1994 when he fell sick but submitted his medical leave with effect from 14.9.1994 to 9.12.1994. The leave application submitted by the petitioner ought to have been decided by the sanctioning authority as per law. Since no decision has been conveyed to the petitioner about his medical leave, it will be deemed to have been sanctioned. Moreover, the respondents have also admitted in the reply that petitioner in fact had submitted medical leave with effect from 14.9.1994 to 9.12.1994. If the days with effect from 14.9.1994 to 4 9.12.1994 are taken into consideration, the petitioner will complete 240 days as Junior Engineer in the year 1994 as well. Thus, the petitioner ought to have been regularized immediately after the completion of period of 8 years to be counted with effect from 1994 as Junior Engineer instead of 11.4.2005. The regularization of the petitioner has been arbitrarily delayed. 5. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as Junior Engineer by counting 8 years with effect from 1994 with all the consequential benefits within a period of 10 weeks after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 15.7.2011 *awasthi*