To be Stricto Sensu there Shouldn’t be any Delay and Laches: High Court of Shimla

 Hig h C o urt of H.P on 03 04 HCHP IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No.78319 Decided on: 1st April 2021 Japan Singh …..Petitioner Versus Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Visvavidyalaya Palampur …..Respondent Coram Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge Whether approved for reporting 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta and Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. L.N. Sharma Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua JudgePetitioner seeks regularization as Beldar w.e.f. the date when he completed eight years of service alongwith all consequential benefits. 2. Petitioner was appointed with the respondent University as daily paid Labourer in July 1994. His services were regularized as Beldar w.e.f. 06.07.2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was required to be regularized as Beldar w.e.f. 06.07.2002 on completion of eight years of service. The petitioner superannuated on 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order Hig h C o urt of H.P on 03 04 HCHP 2 31.05.2015. Almost a year later i.e. on 01.05.2016 he filed the instant petition claiming regularization retrospectively w.e.f. 06.07.2002. 3. The respondent University has not denied the factual position that the petitioner had completed eight years of regular service as daily paid Labourer on 31.12.2002 and the fact that the services of the petitioner were regularized as Beldar on 06.07.2008. The stand of the respondent is that the petitioner’s services were regularized on the basis of State Policy dated 09.06.2006 as adopted by the respondent vide notification dated 14.06.2007 pursuant to which the respondent created 169 posts of Beldar on 19.06.2008. It is against one of these posts that the petitioner was regularized on 06.07.2008. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that prior to 2006 State Policy the respondent University had adopted 2000 regularization policy of the State Government. However the petitioner had not completed eight years of service as Labourer by 31.03.2000 the cut off date in the policy. Therefore his services could not be regularized at that time. Additionally the posts of Beldar were not available for regularizing the daily wage Hig h C o urt of H.P on 03 04 HCHP 3 employees. No rejoinder disputing these facts and aspects has been filed by the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record appended with the petition. 5. 2006 regularization policy of the State Government was circulated on 09.06.2006 in respect of regularization of those daily wagers who had completed eight years of continuous service as on 31.03.2004 against vacant posts. The record shows that 2006 policy for regularization of daily wage workers who had completed eight years of continuous service as on 31.03.2004 was adopted by the respondent University vide notification dated 14.06.2007. The relevant portion of the notification is extracted hereunder: “The Board of Management CSK HPKV Palampurhas been pleased to approve the adoption of policy as such contained in letter No.PER(AP) C B(2) 1 2006 Vol.II dated 9th June 2006 from the Secretaryto the Govt. of HP regarding regularization of Daily Waged Contingent Paid Works in the Universityif any also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge April 01 2021 Mukesh 

Summary: The petition cannot be ‘stricto sensu’ said to be within the limitation period provided under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act as it suffers from delay and laches. This honorable judgement was passed by High Court of Shimla in the case of Japan Singh Versus Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Visvavidyalaya, Palampur [CWPOA No.7832 of 2019] by Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. The Petitioner in this petition seeks regularization as Beldar w.e.f. the date when he completed eight years of service along with all consequential benefits. He was appointed in University as daily paid Labourer in July, 1994. His services were regularized as Beldar w.e.f. 06.07.2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was required to be regularized as Beldar w.e.f. 06.07.2002 on completion of eight years of service. The respondent-University had not denied the factual position that the petitioner had completed eight years of regular service as daily paid Labourer and the fact that the services of the petitioner were regularized as Beldar on 06.07.2008. It is against one of these posts that the petitioner was regularized on 06.07.2008. Additionally, the posts of Beldar were not available for regularizing the daily wage employees. 2006 regularization policy of the State Government was circulated on 09.06.2006 in respect of regularization of those daily wagers, who had completed eight years of continuous service as on 31.03.2004 against vacant posts. The record shows that 2006 policy for regularization of daily wage workers, who had completed eight years of continuous service as on 31.03.2004, was adopted by the respondent-University vide notification dated 14.06.2007. The court was opinioned that, “it is evident that the petitioner was not eligible for regularization under the 2000 regularization policy. Petitioner completed eight years of daily wage services as on 31.12.2002. However, the fact remains that he did not fall within the purview of 2000 regularization policy in existence at that time the policy was adopted by the respondent-University vide notification dated 14.06.2007. 169 posts for regularizing the services of daily wage Beldars were created in the respondent-University on 19.06.2008. The petitioner along with other similarly situated daily wage Beldars, 163 in number, was accordingly regularized on 06.07.2008. Petitioner had not been able to demonstrate any discrimination allegedly meted out to him.”