RAGHU NATH Vs. B.C. BIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complaint of the petitioner is that the direction of the Tribunal in the order dated 27.12.2005 has not been complied with in proper spirit. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows: - Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances of the case the present Original Application itself is directed to be treated as representation to the Director of Animal Husbandry, Himachal Pradesh with a direction to decide the same within a period of two months from the receipt of copy of this order. The Director concerned is further directed to decide the representation of the applicant in accordance with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhaya vs. State of H.P. and others 1994(2) SLR 377 which is followed by this Tribunal in OA No. 1726/2003 titled as Randeep Singh vs. State of H.P. Latest HLJ 2005 (HP) 1367 and the same has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. in CWP No. 247/2004 titled as State of H.P. and Ors. vs. Randeep Singh decided on November 16, 2005, Latest HLJ 2005 (HP) 1368. -

(2.) IN the reply at paragraphs 5 -6, it is stated as follows: In reply to these paras it is submitted that the representation of the applicant was considered in letter & spirit, as per the order dated 27.12.2005, passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal. However, it is pertinent to mention here that in the Animal Husbandry Department no post of work charged exists. The work charged category only exists in the Department of Public Works and Irrigation and Public health, where the daily wages are first brought on the work charged category. In the Animal Husbandry, Department of daily paid balder ore being regularized as per tile policies issued by the State Government from time to time. The applicant was already considered for regularization but he could not be regularized at that time as he did nor fulfill the conditions required as per the police of the Government vide letter No. PER (A.P) - C -B (2) -2/97 -Vol IV, dated 3rd April 2000, the copy of which is annexed herewith as Annexure R -III. The applicant had not completed 8 years of continuous service (with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year, as on 31.3.2000, at the point of time. However, it is pertinent to mention here that as per the latest policy of the Government vide notification no. PER (AP) -C -B (2) -1/2006 - Vol -II dated 9 -6 -2006 (the copy of which is annexed as Annexure R -I), the services of the applicant has been regularized, vide order No. AHY -H (1) -(2) -3/95, dated 6 -7 -2005, the copy of which is annexed as Annexure R -II and English translation thereof as Annexure R -T -II. -

(3.) ORDER dated 6.5.2000, to the extent relevant, reads as follows: