HIMENDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MATERIAL facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was engaged as daily waged Draughtsman in the year 1989. The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that though his designation was changed as mason or Ferro Printer, but he had been working as Junior Draughtsman. He has however been regularised as Beldar on 11.7.2005.

(2.) MS . Ranjana Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that her client had been working as Junior Draughtsman from 1.12.1989 and his services should have been regularised as Junior Draughtsman instead of Beldar. She has relied upon the experience certificate issued by Executive Engineer and annexures whereby his case was favourably recommended for the post of Junior Draughtsman. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the decision of the State Government whereby the petitioner was regularised as Beldar. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. It is evident from Annexure A -1, dated 20th May, 1997 that the petitioner had been working as Junior Draughtsman in H.P., P.W.D. Karsog Division (B&R) with effect from 1.12.1989 to 19.5.1997. He was informed by the Superintending Engineer that his case for regularization to the post of Ferro Printer has been taken up with the Chief Engineer, H.P., PWD, Shimla and as soon as the sanction for the said post is received, he will be posted against the said post. Petitioner had informed the Superintending Engineer, Karsog Division on 9.10.2003 that he had been working as Junior Draughtsman even though he had been issued the muster rolls of mason or Ferro Printer with effect from December, 1989.

(3.) MR . R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that since the petitioner has accepted the post of Beldar, he is estopped from seeking regularization as Junior Draughtsman. There is no merit in this plea. There cannot be any estoppal against the Fundamental Rights (See Nar Singh Pal versus Union of India and others (2000) 3 SCC 588). Petitioner has a right to be considered for regularization in accordance with law on the basis of total length of service. Petitioner has placed sufficient material on record to substantiate that he has been working as Junior Draughtsman with effect from 1.12.1989 till the conferment of work charge status as Beldar. The Executive Engineer has certified that the petitioner had worked as Junior Draughtsman in Karsog Division with effect fro 1.12.1989 to 19.5.1997. He has been assured by the Superintending Engineer that his case will be considered for the post of Ferro Printer as per Annexure A -3. Petitioner has prayed for regularizing him as Junior Draughtsman as per Annexure A -4. Annexure A -7, dated 14.10.2004 reveals that petitioners case for regularization as Junior Draughtsman was sent to the Government. It pre -supposes that the petitioner had been working as Junior Draughtsman. Petitioner has amply proved on record that he had been working as Junior Draughtsman, though he was issued the muster roll of mason or Ferro Printer.