PINKI DEVI Vs. STATE OF H. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the extant writ petition, the writ petitioner claims, the, making of a mandamus,upon, the respondents, to mete her, the, benefits of regularisation, as a forest worker, w.e.f. 31.03.1998 or w.e.f. 31.03.1999. The writ petitioner, also claims condonation of fictional breaks, as, made, during her service, by the respondents, rather for depriving her to complete 240 days of continuous service in each 8 calender years preceding 31.03.1998 or 31.03.1999.

(2.) The respondents denied the afore claim, and, they proceeded, to contend in their reply on affidavit, that Annexure R-1, annexure whereof is the mandays chart, with respect to the work, as, a daily wager rendered by the petitioner, rather not reflecting, that in each of the respective 8 apposite calender years preceding, 31.03.1998 and 31.03.1999, the writ petitioner rendering 240 days of continuous service, in each, of the apposite 8 calender year(s). (i) Since, in the relevant policy, as, formulated by the respondents, vis-a-vis, the conferring, of, the afore benefit of regularisation in service, upon, the hitherto daily waged workers, it is imperative, for the latter to complete 240 days, of, continuous service in each of the eight calender years, (ii)whereas, with Annexure R-1 not suggestive, vis-a-vis, the afore criteria becoming satisfied by the writ petitioner, (iii) consequently, the espoused mandamus, inasmuch, as, the respondents being directed to confer the afore benefit of regularisation in service, upon, the petitioner w.e.f. 31.03.1998 or w.e.f. 31.03.1999, is amenable for its being declined.

(3.) However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended, that since the information received, from, the Public Information Officer, under the Right to Information Act, information whereof is enclosed as Annexure A-2, with the extant writ petition, does repudiate, the mandays chart, as, appended with the reply furnished to the extant writ petition, by the respondents, hence, credence is to be meted to Annexure A2, than to Annexure R-1. However, the afore argument, cannot be accepted by this Court, as, the mandays chart enclosed, in Annexure A-2, is merely a photo copy of the original, and, excepting its last page becoming signatured, all other pages do not carry signatures, of the Officer hence maintaining the musteroll(s) of the writ petitioner. Contrarily, Annexure R-1, is, signatured on all its pages, by the Divisional Forest Officer, Parvati Forest Division, Shamshi, and, hence the displays made therein carry immense credence, and, probative sanctity.