TILAK CHAND Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Uncontrovertedly the petitioner, joined in the year 9.9.1997, as a daily waged workman with the respondents. He continued in the afore capacity, up to, his regularization in the afore capacity, in, the year 16.8.2007. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits, that in consonance with the pronouncement(s) rendered by this Court, respectively, in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 titled as Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P alongwith connected matters and others, and, in CWP No. 2415 of 2012 titled as Mathu Ram versus Municipal Corporation and others, and, in LPA No. 194 of 2015 titled as State of H.P and others versus Gian Singh, (a) rather the entitlement of daily rated workmen to beget regularization, become declared to accrue upon theirs' hence completing 8 years of continuous service, under, the employer concerned. Consequently, the learned counsel, for, the petitioner submits that the petitioner became entitled for regularization in service in the year 2005, than, in the year 2007.

(2.) However, the afore prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is, vehemently opposed by Mr. Hemanshu Mishra, learned Additional Advocate General, and, he submits that the afore identically placed workmen in the afore verdict, vis-a-vis, the petitioner herein, though were bestowed the afore benefits, however, the petitioner yet cannot be treated alike the afore beneficiaries, (a) as, the cause of action accrued to the petitioner in the year 2007, and, since then up to now, there is an immense lapse of time, (b) besides, when the afore delay remains inexplicated, (c) thereupon, the, benefits of the verdicts supra rendered by this Court hence cannot be extended to him. Also it is contended that thereupon, since the petitioner has acquiesced qua his being aptly regularized, in the year 2007, does also, render the afore stain to acquire aggravated momentum.

(3.) However, the afore made submission by the learned Additional Advocate General, cannot be accepted, as, in paragraph 6 of the verdict rendered in Rakesh Kumar case (supra), this Court had, after rejecting the contention, of, embargo of delay and latches, as, raised therebefore, by the respondents, for, hence declining relief to the petitioners therein, rather concluded that the afore argument, is, a hypertechnical argument. Further more, when also the afore verdict has been stated, at the bar, by the learned Additional Advocate General, to, become affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the year 2015, (a) thereupon when immediately subsequent thereto, the writ petitioner has instituted the instant petition before this Court, (b) thereupon, the cumulative effects of the afore rejection of the respondents' espousal, for, denying to the petitioners therein, the, relief of regularization, in service, on the ground of delay and laches, is, to be concluded to be also not barring the petitioner herein to claim hence relief alike the one granted, to, similarly and alike situated employees. Moreover, obviously the cause of action accrued, only, upon dismissal of SLP preferred against the verdict supra rendered by this Court, hence by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and, not earlier thereto.