IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 12052 of 2008. Decided on 7.01.2011 Karan Jit Singh ..…Petitioner. Versus The Managing Director, HRTC and others …… Respondents. _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. M.C. Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate V.K.Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petitioner had initially joined employment of the respondent corporation as ‘casual worker in the capacity of conductor’, vide office order dated 27th April, 1977, Annexure A-4. However, as per endorsement at serial No.2 of office order, Annexure A-4, a recital was incorporated that the petitioner ‘may please be posted in office side’. Later on vide office order dated nil of June, 1978, Annexure A-5, the petitioner was appointed as conductor in the pay scale of Rs. 110-200 per month w.e.f. 1.12.1978. However, vide office order dated 20.1.1987, Annexure A- 6, the date of appointment of the petitioner as conductor on regular basis was rectified from 1.12.1978 to 28.12.1977. thereafter consequent upon exercise of potion by the petitioner he was re- designated as “B-Grade” Clerk in the pay scale of 110-200 w.e.f. 1.1.1279 vide office order dated 27.1.1979, Annexure A-7. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 2. Against the above back drop, representation dated 12.7.2004, Annexure A-8 was submitted by the petitioner to respondent No.1 with a prayer to treat him “as working on the post of clerk right from the day of my joining i.e. 2.5.77 and grant of the seniority and promotion benefits accordingly”, but the same did not find favour with the respondents and was consequently rejected vide letter dated 30th March, 2005, Annexure A-1, on the ground that “there is no provision in R&P Rules of HRTC to regularize a person right from the date of his engagement as casual worker”. 3. Though, admittedly the petitioner was claiming regularization as clerk from the right inception when he had joined as ‘casual worker in the capacity of conductor’, w.e.f. 2.5.1977, yet the fact remains that initial appointment of the petitioner as conductor was rectified from 1.12.1978 to 28.12.1977 and thereafter on option having been exercised by him he has re-designated as clerk w.e.f. 1.1.1979. Thus, though the grievance raised by the petitioner vide representation dated 12.7.2004, Annexure A-8, was that he may be treated as working on the post of clerk right from the date of his joining i.e. 2.5.1977 along with further prayer for seniority and promotional benefits, yet during the course of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in any case, the case of the petitioner for grant of status of clerk can be considered w.e.f. 28.12.1977 in terms of office order dated 20.1.1987 in terms of office order dated 20.1.1987, Annexure A-6, read with office order dated 27.1.1979, Annexure A-7. 4. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction that subject to the petitioner making a representation along with copy of this judgment to respondent No.1 within one month from 3 today, the said respondent shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter within next three months in accordance with law and justice by taking into consideration the above submission on behalf of the petitioner that he is entitled for re-designation as clerk and consequential benefits of seniority and promotional benefits w.e.f. 28.12.1977 in terms of office order dated 20.1.1987, Annexure A-6 read with office order dated 27.1.1979, Annexure A-7, by affording an opportunity of being heard to him as also to the persons, if any, likely to be affected by such exercise, if so desired. 5. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 7thJanuary, 2011. (jai)