IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 11875 of 2008 Date of Decision : March 29, 2011 Rattan Chand Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents-State. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) According to the petitioner he was engaged as a Fitter Grade-II in the year 1987 against a regular post. This fact is not in issue in the present petition. Be that as it may be, according to the petitioner the post of Fitter Grade-II was re-designated as Pump Operator w.e.f. 11.10.1989 and he started working as a Pump Operator thereafter. In the reply respondents have clearly stated that petitioner’s engagement as a Pump Operator w.e.f. October, 1989 was only on daily wage basis. Respondents have further averred that petitioner was regularized as a Pump Operator w.e.f. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 4.8.2003. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that petitioner was made to retire, pre-maturely, on 30.4.2005 in terms of office order dated 4.4.2005. According to him, had the benefit of the policy of regularization been correctly accorded to him, he would have retired on 30.4.2007 instead of 30.4.2005. Petitioner is also seeking all consequential, including monetary, benefits from the State. 2. The scope of this petition is limited. Petitioner has assailed the order of his retirement. However, in exercise of the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction this Court can always mould the relief to subserve the cause of justice. 3. From the reply respondents themselves admit that petitioner was regularized as Pump Operator but only w.e.f. 4.8.2003. Nothing has been produced on record to show as to why the benefit of regularization policy was not accorded to the petitioner after completion of his 8/10 years of service w.e.f. October, 1989. Notification dated 10.5.2001 (Annexure A-3) deals with only those category of persons who stand appointed/regularized w.e.f. 10.5.2001. Had the benefit of policy of regularization been accorded to the petitioner in accordance with law, perhaps his services would have been regularized prior to 10.5.2001 and then he would have retired only after attaining the prevalent age of superannuation i.e. 60 years and not 58 years. 4. In the absence of any material on record to show as to why he was not regularized earlier no other direction can be issued 3 to the respondents save and except that respondents shall examine the petitioner’s case for regularization, strictly in accordance with the policy of regularization framed by the State and accord benefits thereof. While considering the same respondents shall taken into account petitioner’s eligibility and the available vacancy. 5. The decision shall be taken within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment. It is clarified that all amounts due and admissible, if any, be also released to the petitioner within the aforesaid period, failing which thereafter, petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. March 29, 2011 (PK)