IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 11912 of 2008. Decided on: 13.5.2011. ___________________________________________________________ Dillu Ram. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para No. 7 (i) to (iii):- “7 (i). The respondents may be ordered to give the regularization to the applicant w.e.f. 1.4.1998/1.4.1999 (and not from 13.5.2004 (notional basis w.e.f. 5.12.2002) after 15 years of service) on the post of ‘Pump Operator’ with all the benefits incidental thereof, such as arrears of pay and seniority etc.. Alternatively, the similar order which was passed by this Hon’ble Court in O.A. 150/1996 titled as Gurnam Singh v/s State of H.P. & others, may also be passed in the present case. (ii). That the respondents may be directed to regularize the service of the applicant after creating a post of ‘Pump Operator’ with all benefits from due date. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 (iii). That the respondents may be directed to give the work-charge status to the applicant exactly after 10 years of service. 2. In the reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide para 6(1) on merits:- “6 (1). In reply to this para it is submitted that applicant has initially worked as a Chowkidar w.e.f. Feb., 1989 to 05.05.1991 and Pump Operator w.e.f. 06.09.1991 till regularization. It is further submitted that service of the applicant has been regularized as per the policy applicable to the applicant at the relevant time. It is further submitted that policy as approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case stand modified by the policy dated 19.06.1999 and thereafter, this policy stand vide notification 29.8.2002. Moreover, applicant was not eligible for regularization as he was unqualified. However, the Government has taken a sympathetic view and took up the relaxation core with the competent authority i.e. State Cabinet and it is only after granting relaxation and completion of the training the applicant was offered appointment and he accepted the same without any protest. Therefore, the present O.A. deserve to be dismissed.” 3. It is further averred as under vide para 2 of the short reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in terms of order dated 6.1.2011:- “That in compliance to the aforesaid order, it is submitted that the applicant has worked as Chowkidar w.e.f. 1.2.1989 to 3.5.1991 and w.e.f. 4.5.1991 onwards as Pump Operator 3 under I.P.H. Division, Indora and has completed 240 days only w.e.f. 4.5.1991 as Pump Operator. Therefore, he is entitled to seniority w.e.f. 4.5.1991 as Pump Operator. The petitioner has been regularized lateron vide order dated 28.5.2010 (Annexure RA-1) in terms of judgment passed in Gauri Dutt’s case on the completion of 10 years continuous service on higher grade i.e. Class-III category w.e.f. 1.1.2001. The man days of the petitioner including the man days chart of Chowkidar (Class-IV) i.e. w.e.f. 1.2.1989 to 3.5.1991 is hereby annexed as Annexure RA- II. Therefore, in view of subsequent events he has been regularized as per Gauri Dutt’s case and paid arrear and accepted the same, as such the present petition has become infructuous, therefore, the CWP may be dismissed as having become infructuous.” 4. In view of the above replies, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance, he may make a detailed representation supported by documents, if any, along with a copy of this judgment to the respondents/competent authority within three months from today, who shall consider and take final decision in the matter in accordance with law within next three months after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. Needless to say that consequential benefits, if any, would follow on the decision on the representation. 5. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. May 13, 2011. (cr) 4