PARKASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner challenges the making of an order borne in Annexure A-2. The afore order was made in pursuance to a direction made by this Court, in an earlier Civil Writ Petition bearing No. 8893 of 2014 titled as Parkash Chand versus State of H.P & others, decided on 11.12.2014, becoming filed by the writ petitioner. The afore writ petition became disposed of with the hereinafter extracted directions:-

(2.) Through impugned Annexure A-2, the respondent concerned rejected the claim of the writ petitioner for his being regularized in service w.e.f the year claimed in the Civil Writ Petition supra.

(3.) The making of Annexure A-2, by the respondent concerned, has been impugned by the writ petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the impugned Annexure suffers from an illegality, in as much as, it is made beyond the ambit of, the, policy of regularization, as has been formulated by the respondents. However, though, within the ambit of the afore policy, the writ petitioner, did complete, the requisite term of eligiblising service for his hence becoming capacitated to stake a claim for regularization, (i) nonetheless the mere completion of 8 years in service as a daily wager by the petitioner under the respondents, would not per se entitle him, to, seek any vested right for his, immediately on completion of, the, relevant qualifying period of service as a daily wager, seeking conferment of the benefits of regularization in service upon him, as, the afore conferment is subject to certain fetters in as much as (a) prior to his being conferred the benefits of regularization his being put on a work charge basis (b) the conferment of benefit of regularization in service upon the workmen concerned being subject to availability of posts, and also subject to his occupying the relevant reckonable notch in the seniority list maintained for the relevant purpose by the respondents.