IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 628/2008 Decided on:10.5. 2010 _____________________________________________ Santosh Chauhan. …Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh Housing and UDA and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Devinder Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, J (oral) Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was engaged as a daily wage Clerk by the respondent-Board vide office order dated 7.11.1997. She was engaged for a period of 89 days. This period was extended for another 60 days. Services of the petitioner were discontinued with effect from 24.6.1998. Thereafter petitioner was re-engaged as Supervisor for 85 days vide letter dated 24.2.1999 and she worked as 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Supervisor with effect from 4.3.1999 for a period of 85 days. This period was further extended by 85 days. She filed original application bearing OA No. 1989/1999 before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal against the termination of her services. The learned Tribunal vide interim order dated 26.7.1999 directed the respondent-Board to re-engage the petitioner in the same capacity. She was re- engaged. The Original Application No. 1989/1999 was dismissed for want of jurisdiction on 3.3.2005. However, the fact of the matter is that petitioner is still working as Clerk/Supervisor in the respondent-Board. Mrs. Ranjana Parmar has strenuously argued that the action of the respondents not to regularize her client as Clerk after completion of eight years continuous service is illegal and arbitrary. Mr. Devinder Sharma has argued that since the petitioner had not completed 240 days in the years 1997, 1998 and 1999, her services could not be regularized. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings carefully. Petitioner was engaged with intermittent breaks as Clerk with effect from 7.11.1997. Certificate Annexure A-3 has been issued by the Executive Engineer. He has certified, after verifying the records, that petitioner was engaged as 3 Clerk/Supervisor and was working on clerical job with effect from 11.11.1997 to 12.5.2001 and had been attending to clerical job. Similarly, Superintending Engineer (N) has certified vide Annexure A-4 after verifying the records that the petitioner though enrolled as Work Inspector was working on clerical job with effect from 13.5.2001 to 31.7.2007. He has also certified that the petitioner knew computer typing as well. Petitioner approached erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of CWP No. 1955/2007 seeking direction to the respondent-Board to regularize her services. The same was disposed of by the learned Tribunal by directing the original application to be treated as representation by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 rejected the representation on 3.11.2007. In the meantime, petitioner had also made representation on 9.10.2007, which stood rejected by the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Secretary on 13.3.2008. According to the petitioner, she could not complete 240 days in the year 1999 since she fell sick for a period of 60 days with effect from 28.5.1999 to 26.7.1999. She was examined by the Medical Board. However, according to Mr. Devinder Sharma, the matter was got verified from the Medical Superintend, Regional Hospital, Solan and he has opined that the petitioner was under treatment at Civil 4 Hospital, Kandaghat with effect from 28.5.1999 vide OPD No.8516/99 and has been examined by the Medical Board at Solan vide OPD NO.24.8.37 dated 1.3.2008. According to him, there was no clinical evidence to suggest whether patient suffered from ankle sprain in the year 1999. The fact of the matter is that Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer have issued certificates Annexures A-3 and A-4 certifying therein that the petitioner has worked as Clerk with effect from 11.11.1997 to 31.7.2007. It has come in the reply of the respondent-Board that these certificates are procured. This stand of the Board cannot be accepted. The certificates have been issued by the responsible functionaries of the Board and the same cannot be permitted to be disowned by it. Petitioner has also relied upon Annexure A-2 to prove that she has completed 48 days in the year 1997, 139 days in the year 1998 and 205 days in the year 1999. Respondent-Board has also relied upon Annexure R-VI whereby petitioner has been shown to be worked as Supervisor for 48 days in the year 1997, 139 days in the year 1998 and 205 days in the year 1999. A bare perusal of Annexures A-2 and R-VI reveals that the petitioner has worked only for 48 days in the year 1997 and for 139 days in the year 1998. Petitioner has worked for 205 days in the year 1999. If the period, the petitioner 5 remained under treatment with effect from 28.5.1999 to 26.7.1999, is taken into consideration, petitioner would complete 240 days in the year 1999. The Court will believe the medical certificate issued by the competent authority as per Annexure R-II. This document cannot be termed to be procured as argued by Mr. Devinder Sharma. It may be true that this medical certificate has been obtained by the petitioner at belated stage, though, it was advisable to get the same in the year 1999 itself. Accordingly, the petitioner had completed 240 days in the year 1999 also after adding the days she remained sick. Thereafter there is no dispute that the petitioner has worked continuously for 240 days in each calendar year and, as per notification issued by the State Government, her case was required to be considered for regularization to the post of Clerk/Supervisor. Mr. Devinder Sharma vehemently submitted that case of the petitioner was forwarded to the competent authority, i.e. Additional Chief Secretary (Housing) to seek relaxation qua the petitioner on 3.2.2010. Mr. Sharma on the basis of this document has submitted that three daily wage Work Inspectors working in the respondent-Board had completed eight years service as on 31.3.2008 and the posts are still lying vacant against which they can be considered for regularization. This letter dated 3.2.2010, as shown by Mr. 6 Devinder Singh to the Court, strengthens the case of the petitioner that she had been continuously working and her case is under consideration for regularization by relaxing the Rules. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization for the post of Clerk/Supervisor immediately after the completion of eight years from 1999. Needful be done within a period of ten weeks from today. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 10.5.2010. *awasthi*