UMESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs :-

(2.) As a matter of fact, the petitioner was engaged as a daily waged Beldar w.e.f. 28.6.1994 in Municipal Council, Solan. There were two posts of Clerk lying vacant in the Municipal Council, Solan. Vide Resolution No.1082 dated 30.12.1999, the Council recommended the names of four employees to be engaged on contract basis. Thereafter, amongst them Kuldeep Gupta and Tej Ram Sharma, were engaged on contract. On receiving the recommendation, respondent No.3 the Director, Urban Development of the Government of Himachal Pradesh conveyed the approval of the Government, for regularization of the concerned officials, those who were posted against the vacant posts in order of their seniority. The petitioner herein assailed this order before the Erstwhile Tribunal by filing an O.A. No.3281 of 2000. When the said Original Application was pending in the Tribunal, Kuldeep Gupta and Tej Ram Sharma aforesaid were regularized. But however, the order of their regularization was set-aside by the Tribunal vide its order dated 27.2.2003 and the direction was issued to the respondents i.e. the Municipal Council, Solan, The Executive Officer and The Director, Urban Development, Government of Himachal Pradesh to consider the case of the petitioner herein against the available vacancy in accordance with the seniority to be taken from the date of engagement of the applicant as a daily waged Clerk in the Municipal Council, Solan with a time bound direction for its compliance.

(3.) The judicial review of the impugned order was sought by Kuldeep Gupta and Tej Ram Sharma, by filing CWP Nos. 186 and 187 of 2003, respectively. Both these writ petitions were taken on 18.12.2008 by the Division Bench of this Court and then stated at Bar that after the passing of the impugned order by the Tribunal, i.e. 27th February, 2003, the services of Kuldeep Gupta and Tej Ram Sharma were regularized, but they had only grievance about the date of their regularization, as they were entitled to be regularized from the date, earlier in point of time, than the date from which their services were regularized, thus, they were permitted to withdraw their petitions, with liberty to make representations to the concerned authorities to seek regularization of their services from the date, they were entitled and further liberty was reserved to them to file their petitions, in case their representations are not decided to their satisfaction.