IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 310 of 2008. Reserved on : 02.06.2011. Decided on 15.06.2011. _____________________________________________________ Biri Singh. …Petitioner. -Versus- The State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Petitioner was engaged as Beldar in the year 1984. He worked for 56 days in 1984 and 87 days in 1985. Thereafter, he worked as Water Guard for 41 days, Beldar for 104 days in 1987. He worked for 330 days as Beldar and 30 days as Chowkidar in 1988. Thereafter, he worked as Water Guard for 90 days and 253 days as Beldar in 1989. He worked as Beldar for 267 days in 1990. Thereafter, the petitioner has been continuously working as Supervisor w.e.f. 1991 and has completed 214 days in 1991, 363 days in 1992, 335 days in 1993 and 326 days in 1994. State Government took a decision, whereby the services of the petitioner were regularized as Supervisor w.e.f. 01.01.1994 vide order dated 22.12.1994. However, it transpired later on that since the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - petitioner has worked continuously as Supervisor w.e.f. 1992 and has completed 10 years’ service with 240 days in each calendar year from 1992 in 2002, his services could only be regularized in 2002. A committee was constituted to scrutinize the record vide letter dated 02.02.2000. The committee submitted its report and found that the petitioner has completed 10 years’ continuous service as Supervisor with 240 days in each calander year on 31.12.2001 and he was wrongly appointed against the higher grade instead of lower grade of Beldar. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 17.08.2002 why his services should not be regularized as Supervisor w.e.f. 01.01.2002 instead of 01.01.1994. Petitioner filed a detailed reply to the same. Thereafter, vide office order dated 29.06.2007, the order dated 22.12.1994 was withdrawn and the same was modified to the extent that services of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f. 01.01.2002 on the same terms and conditions. Petitioner assailed this order by way of O.A. No. 249 of 2007. The same was directed to be treated as representation to the Engineer-in-Chief, I. & P.H. Department, Shimla. The same was rejected by the Engineer-in- Chief, I. & P.H. Department, Shimla on 12.11.2007. 2. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that a regular inquiry was required to be instituted against the petitioner to determine whether he had completed 10 years’ continuous service as Supervisor on the date of his regularization, i.e., 01.01.1994 or not. He then argued that the impugned action has been taken after a gap of almost 12 years. - 3 - 3. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has vehemently argued that the regularization of the petitioner was contrary to law. He further argued that the petitioner has only completed 10 years’ continuous service as Supervisor with 240 days in each calendar year on 01.01.2002 and in these circumstances, after accepting the recommendations of the committee, which was constituted to scrutinize the record of petitioner and similarly situate persons, the impugned decision has been taken to regularize the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2002 as Supervisor by withdrawing the earlier order dated 22.12.1994. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. It is apparent from the pleadings, more particularly, Ex. P-1 that the petitioner had only started working as Supervisor w.e.f. 1991-1992. He has worked for 214 days in 1991. He has also worked as Supervisor in 1992, 1993 and 1994, whereby he has completed 363, 335 and 326 days, respectively. Petitioner has worked as Supervisor w.e.f. 1992, whereby for the first time he has completed more than 240 days in a block of twelve calendar months. He could only be regularized/conferred work charge status after completion of 10 years’ continuous service as Supervisor with 240 days in each calendar year. Since the petitioner has started working as Supervisor in 1992, he has completed 10 years’ continuous service in 2002. It is, thus, evident that the order dated 22.12.1994, whereby the petitioner has been regularized as Supervisor w.e.f. 01.01.1994, was wrong. A show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner on 17.08.2002, after perusing the record of the committee, which was - 4 - constituted to look into the matter of petitioner and similarly situate persons. He filed a detailed reply to the same. Thereafter, after taking into consideration the averments contained in the reply to show-cause notice, the order dated 22.12.1994 has been withdrawn and modified to the extent whereby the petitioner has now been regularized as Supervisor w.e.f. 01.01.2002. Petitioner was engaged in 1984 and has worked in various capacities, i.e, Beldar, Water Guard, Chowkidar up to 1990. In sequel to the orders passed by the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 249 of 2007, the petitioner has been heard in person, as is evident from order dated 12.11.2007. The Engineer-in-Chief while passing the order dated 12.11.2007, has perused the service record of the petitioner. It is evident from the order that incorrect position of mandays was placed before the screening committee, which led to the regularization of the petitioner on 22.12.1994. Since the petitioner has started working on the higher post w.e.f. 1991-1992 and has completed 240 days in a block of twelve calendar months in 1992 onwards, there is no illegality in the office orders dated 29.06.2007 and 12.11.2007. Petitioner has been issued show- cause notice, to which he filed reply. Petitioner has also been heard in person by the Engineer-in-Chief in sequel to the order passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 249 of 2007. The office orders dated 29.06.2007 and 12.11.2007 are detailed and reasoned. Petitioner has not placed any contemporaneous material on record to establish that he has started working as Supervisor anterior to 1991-1992. Petitioner has been wrongly regularized and this mistake has been rectified by the department - 5 - by adhearing to the principles of natural justice. It is also apparent from the record that similarly situate persons have also filed Original Applications bearing O.A.(M) No. 291/1996 and O.A.(M) No. 292/1996 based on same and similar facts, which were rejected by the learned Tribunal on 14.11.2007. Learned Tribunal has, rather, noted while dismissing the Original Applications that they had committed grave misconduct/offence of fabricating record and then concealing these facts in the original applications. In view of this, the costs of `5000/- was also imposed while dismissing the Original Applications. It is easily discernable from the record that at the time when the case of petitioner was recommended by the screening committee for regularization in 1994, the true facts were not taken into consideration. The committee has not even cared to go into the contents of the mandays chart before considering the case of petitioner and similarly situate persons. It was duty cast upon the respondents to screen the candidates in accordance with law and also by looking into the mandays chart category-wise. In view of this, no regular inquiry, as argued by Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, was required to be instituted. The office orders dated 29.06.2007 and 12.11.2007 have been passed in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge June 15, 2011. (bhupender) - 6 - - 7 - `