IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 9442 of 2008 Decided on 17.12.2010 Ramesh Chand …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No For the petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. _______________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : Petitioner was appointed as Driver in the respondent/department on 20.07.1989 and was regularized w.e.f. 3.12.1999. Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that one Shri Shyam Lal, who was appointed on 5.3.1991, has been regularized w.e.f. 31.3.1999. 2. Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that his client was also required to be regularized as Driver from the date his junior, namely, Shyam Lal was regularized i.e. w.e.f. 31.3.1999. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that Shri Shyam Lal has been regularized w.e.f. 31.3.1999 on the basis of the directions issued by the learned 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No -2- erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1393 of 2000, decided on 12.12.2000. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is senior to Shri Shyam Lal. Petitioner was appointed as Driver on daily wage basis on 20.7.1989 and Shyam Lal was appointed as Driver on 5.3.1991. Shri Shyam Lal had approached the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 1393 of 2000 for the redressal of his grievance. The same was allowed on 12.12.2000. Learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had directed the respondent/department to consider the case of Shri Shyam Lal for regularization w.e.f. 31.3.1999 i.e. immediately after completion of 8 years' continuous service. Accordingly, his case was considered and he was appointed on regular basis w.e.f. 31.3.1999. The petitioner made a representation seeking his date of appointment also from 31.3.1999. In sequel to the representation made by the petitioner, he was assigned seniority at serial No. 64 and Shri Shyam Lal was assigned seniority at serial No. 65. The seniority list was revised on 25.2.2003. However, the date of appointment of the petitioner has been shown as 3.12.1999 and that of Shri Shyam Lal as 31.3.1999. 6. The Court is of the considered view that the respondent/department should have considered the case of the petitioner also for regularization at par with Shri Shyam Lal, w.e.f. 31.3.1999 instead of 3.12.1999. The respondents have admitted in the -3- reply that the petitioner was senior to Shri Shyam Lal. The grievance of the petitioner stands redressed partially by the respondent/department by making him senior to Shri Shyam Lal in the seniority list. It is also evident from the reply filed by the respondents that Shri Shyam Lal was not qualified as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules and his case was considered and approved by the State Government for relaxation in educational qualification. The Court is also of the opinion that the case of the petitioner was required to be considered for regularization w.e.f. 31.3.1999 instead of 3.12.1999, immediately after completion of 8 years' continuous service. 7. Accordingly, in view of the discussions/observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed with a direction to the respondent/department to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization, on the analogy of Shri Shyam Lal, w.e.f. 31.3.1999. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 17.12.2010 (K. Attri)