JAMNA DEVI Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:

(2.) IT is submitted that an identical issue was considered by this Court leading to judgment in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. & ors. The text of the judgment reads as follows: "The petitioners herein are workers who have been regularized in service under the Irrigation and Public Health Department. All of them have been regularized in service as per the various schemes announced by the State from time to time. Their only grievance is that before regularization, they should have been granted the work-charged status. 2. The only reference to be made for analyzing the grievance of the petitioners is two orders of the Government. One order is dated 3.4.2000 and other is dated 6.5.2000. Order dated 3.4.2000, reads as follows: "In partial modification of this Department letter of even number dated 8th July, 1999 on the above subject, I am directed to say that the Government has now decided that the Daily Waged/Contingent Paid workers in all the Departments including Public Works and Irrigation and Public Health Departments (other than work-charged categories)/Boards/Corporations/Universities, etc. who have completed 8 years of continuous service (with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year) as on 31-03-2000 will be eligible for regularization. IT has further been decided that completion of required years of service makes such daily wager/contingent paid worker eligible for consideration to be regularized and regularization in all cases will be from prospective effect i.e. from the date the order of regularization is issued after completion of codal formalities.

(3.) LEARNED Senior Additional Advocate General submits that as per the schemes, they have been regularized and since the scheme permits only regularization w.e.f. the date of the regularization, the petitioners are not entitled to any further relief. It is also contended that in any case, since the petitioners are claiming for a relief which they ought to have claimed in the year 2004, this Court will not be justified in granting any relief since the petitioners have not offered any satisfactory explanation for the in- ordinate delay.