SAROJ KUMARI Vs. STATE OF H. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dtd. 10/1/2020 (Annexure P-9), passed by Director Ayurveda, Himachal Pradesh in purported compliance of order dtd. 30/12/2019 (Annexure P-11), passed by this Court in COPC(T) No.101 of 2019, whereby this Court disposed of the aforesaid contempt petition on the basis of the statement made by learned Additional Advocate General on the instructions of the Law Officer present in Court, that fresh consideration order in terms of order dtd. 19/11/2015 read with order dtd. 13/12/2012, shall be passed positively within a period of ten days, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein following reliefs:-

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that deceased Lachho Ram i.e. husband of the petitioner herein was appointed as Class-IV part time worker on 1/8/1969 and in this capacity, he served the Department till 10/8/2005 when he unfortunately expired. Respondents regularized the services of the petitioner on 19/10/2005, as is evident from Annexure P-3, whereas the services of the petitioner were required to be regularized on 1/1/1999 in terms of Recruitment and Promotion Rules, as such, he filed writ petition before this Court bearing CWP No.2031 of 2011, which was allowed with the direction to the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner's husband in terms of Clause-11of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules counting his services as part time worker and then consider his case for regularization on the availability of vacancy on the date on which petitioner's husband Lachho Ram has completed 10 years service with 240 days in each calendar year. Apart from above, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide aforesaid judgment dtd. 13/12/2021 also ordered that merely because the decision was taken in October, 2005 would not mean that it deprive the petitioner's husband from such regularization. It is the availability of the posts to be filled in, in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court also held that since Lachho Ram, husband of the petitioner has died, his wife in such eventuality would be entitled to the consequential monetary benefits, if her husband is found eligible. Despite there being aforesaid positive directions to do the needful, respondents after having considered the case of the petitioner rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dtd. 24/8/2013 (Annexure P-5).In the aforesaid order, respondents observed that husband of the petitioner was illiterate and did not possess the requisite essential qualification and as such, he did not fulfill the provision of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, which disqualifies his entitlement for regularization even though he has put in more than 10 years services. Besides above, respondents also observed in the aforesaid order that no post of Class-IV workers were filled up under Recruitment and Promotion Rules before 2005 as no daily waged workers were eligible for regularization at that time. In the aforesaid order, respondents claimed that services of 170 Part Time Worker including husband of the petitioner were regularized on 19/10/2005 with the prior consultation/approval of the Advisory Departments as well as Cabinet by relaxing the essential educational qualification.

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dtd. 24/8/2013, passed by the respondents, petitioner once again approached this Court by way of CWP No.5415 of 2014, however such petition was transferred to erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal on its establishment and was registered as TA No.1356 of 2015. Learned Tribunal vide judgment dtd. 19/11/2015 (Annexure P-6), allowed the petition and directed the respondents to consider the case of the deceased husband of the petitioner (Lachho Ram) for regularization against the available vacancies with all consequential benefits. Since, the respondents did not comply the judgment, petitioner filed contempt petition bearing COPC No.95 of 2016 before the learned Tribunal below, however respondent-State again passed consideration order (Annexure P-7), rejecting the case of the petitioner on the same and similar ground as was raised prior to passing of judgment dtd. 19/11/2015 by learned Tribunal in Transfer Application No.1356 of 2015, titled as Saroj Kumari versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another.