NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that petitioner was initially engaged as a Beldar in the year 1991 on daily wage basis. Thereafter, petitioner was engaged as a Work Inspector w.e.f. March, 1996. His services were regularised as such in the year 2006. The contention of the petitioner is that regularisation of his services against the post of Work Inspector was done by the Department without seeking any option from him and a representation which stood filed by him has been arbitrarily rejected by the Department, vide Annexure P-2, dated 28.12.2019. It is in this background that this petition has been filed, praying for the reliefs already enumerated hereinabove.

(3.) Reply to the petition has been filed by respondents/State, wherein they have taken the stand that services of the petitioner were rightly regularized against the higher post in view of completion of requisite number of years of service in the year 2006. It is further the stand of the respondents/State that the representation of the petitioner also stood rightly rejected by the Department as he had no right of regularisation against the post of Beldar.