Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA. CWP No. : 1718 of 2009-D Date of Decision : 22.12. 2011 Ram Dass, S/o Sh. Mathura Dass, R/o Village Pandor, P.O. Dangla, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. …..Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Himachal Pradesh, through F.C.-cum-Secretary Agriculture, to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. 2. The Himachal Pradesh State Agriculture Marketing Board, through its Managing Director-cum- Member Secretary, Vipnan Bhawan, Khalini-Shimla-171002. 3. The Secretary, Market Committee, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. 4. Sh. Naseeb Singh, S/o Sh. Feena Ram, R/o V.P.O. Attara, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. ….. Respondents. _________________________________________________________________ Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction. ______________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner : Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No.1&2 : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Sanjeev Sharma , Advocate. For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Rakesh Chandel, Advocate. - 2 - Surinder Singh, J. (Oral): By means of the present petition, petitioner seeks writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize his service as Peon-cum-Chowkidar in conformity with the notification dated 8th July, 1999 (Annexure PD) i.e. the Policy for regularization of the Daily Waged/Contingent Paid Workers etc. in the Departments. 2. Precisely, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that he was initially engaged as Daily Waged Labourer w.e.f. 21.9.1993 after having been sponsored by Employment Exchange and is continuing against such post with the 3rd respondent. He is being paid the wages as determined by the State Government from time to time. 3. As per Annexure-PD, Regularization Policy of the State Government aforesaid, Daily Waged are entitled to be regularized subject to the fulfilling of the eligibility criteria provided in the State Government R&P Rules of the category in which the service of the incumbent has to be regularized besides taking into account the post in question. 4. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner did not fulfill the pre-requisites in order to meet the requirements of the Policy qua regularization in view of the R&P Rules vis-à-vis Regulation Policy Annexure R-1/A - 3 - dated 9th June, 2006 whereby the minimum age and qualification have been prescribed for regularization. 5. In fact, the R&P Rules for the post of Class-IV employee came into force on 3rd September, 2007 and the rigor of letter Annexure R-1/A is also applicable w.e.f. 9th June, 2006. 6. It is pointed out that prior to the R&P rules, there were no Recruitment and Promotion Rules in vogue. It is submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2 that the case of the petitioner has already been sent to the 1st respondent, which is pending consideration for regularization in accordance with the R&P Rules but in case of the petitioner, R&P Rules are held not relevant. It is only Policy Annexure PD which is relevant. Therefore, neither the R&P Rules which came into force in 2007 nor the letter dated 9th July, 2006 would apply retrospectively since petitioner had completed 8 years of his services in the year 2001 when the Policy (Annexure PD) was in force, the respondents were to consider the case of the petitioner as the notification dated 8th July, 1999 (Annexure PD) qua his regularization against the vacancy arising in the year 2001 on completion of his 8 years or immediately thereafter. - 4 - 7. The petitioner has submitted in Para-16 of the petition that five posts of Class-IV were lying vacant in the respondent-Board, which fact has not been denied by the respondents in their reply. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization against vacancy arising on his completion of 8 years in the year 2001 or immediately thereafter. The petitioner shall produce certified copy of this judgment alongwith representation to the second respondent for taking a final decision in the matter by respondent No.1 within three months thereof. Ordered accordingly. 9. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. 22nd December, 2011. (Surinder Singh),J. k.sharma