(1.) THE issue raised in all these writ petitions pertains to the claim made by the Petitioners for retrospective regularization. To refer to the undisputed facts, all the Petitioners were engaged as daily waged workers under the Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation. According to the Petitioners, despite availability of vacancies, they have not been regularized in service. There is also a common contention that in any case they should have been granted work charge status in case the regularization was delayed even for want of vacancy. All the Petitioners have been subsequently absorbed in Government Service in the year 2007, in various departments, in Class -IV. It is also seen that except in the cases of a few, the Petitioners have been granted one time relaxation in the of qualification while absorbing them as regular employees in the Government Service. It is the stand of the Corporation that it has been facing serious financial crisis and the Corporation was not in a position to offer job to the daily waged employees since quite a few years and they were proposing to retrench the daily waged workers. It is at that juncture, according to the Corporation, the Government came forward to rescue the Petitioners by offering regular appointment even by relaxing the qualification. According to the Corporation, it did not have sufficient funds at that time even to pay wages to its employees. It is further submitted that the employees had no demur at the relevant time when they were offered regular appointment by the Government in the year 2007. Still further, it is submitted that the Forest Development Corporation is not a work charged establishment and hence, there is no question of conferring work charge status to any of the employees. Yet another submission is that the allegation regarding availability of vacancies is not true to the facts and in any case even if vacancies were there, since the Corporation was finding it difficult even to manage its day to day affairs, it could not have thought of making the regular appointment at the relevant time when it was planning to retrench the available employees.
(2.) LEARNED Deputy Advocate General, representing the State, submits that the State has in fact shown indulgence to the Petitioners by saving them from being retrenched from the Forest Development Corporation for want of work. It is also submitted that the said decision was taken after several rounds of discussions with various departments, the Forest Development Corporation and representatives of the employees. The employees having thus been given regular appointment in Government service as a one time measure in full and final settlement of all their grievances, it is unjust on their part to turn round and contend for retrospective regularization, it is submitted.
(3.) FURTHER at paragraph 5, it is stated that the Government had taken a lenient view for the welfare of the surplus workers in the Corporation and had shown a special indulgence to those workers by deviating from its policy. It is also stated that "There was no any commitment to count the past daily waged service rendered in the Forest Corporation of these surplus daily waged workers in the Government Department for any purpose after their regularization/absorption". Still further, at paragraph 7, it is stated as follows: That regarding second relief of regularization, it is most respectfully submitted that the Petitioners and other similarly situated persons have been regularized in the year 2007 which they have accepted without any protest on their part. It is only in the year 2010, that the Petitioners have filed the present writ petitions. The Petitioners are, therefore, barred by delay and latches hence no relief of regularization can be granted to them.