RAJESH KUMAR Vs. HIMACHAL URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners aver that they were initially engaged as Clerks, on, a daily wage basis. On completion of the requisite tenure of service, on a daily wage basis, in the afore capacity, they were required to be regularised by the respondents in the afore capacity or against the afore post of clerks, against which they were earlier performing their duties. However, the respondents through the impugned office order, borne in Annexure P-2, ordered for their services being regularised against Class-IV post(s). Consequently, the writ petitioners feel aggrieved, and, they seek the making of a mandamus, upon, the respondents to regularise their services against the vacant posts of Clerks. Moreover, they also seek a mandamus being made, for setting aside and quashing of Annexure P-2. In addition, they seek the according to them, the wages of clerks, from the date of their initial engagement in the afore capacity along with all incidental thereto benefits.

(2.) The respondents, in their reply meted to the writ petition, contended that the writ petition is barred by vices of delay, and, laches, inasmuch, as, the writ petitioners accepted their regularisation against the post of Beldar, event whereof occurred on 9.4.2010. Consequently, the respondents contend that the writ petition instituted in the year 2010 is barred by delay, and, laches. Furthermore, they also contend that the acceptance by the writ petitioners of their regularization against the post of Beldar, tantamounts to theirs waiving, and, abandoning, their claim, if any, for theirs being regularized against the post of Clerk. Obviously, the respondents contend that the reliefs canvassed in the writ petition are mis-constituted, as, the afore ill conduct, estops them from claiming any relief against the respondents.

(3.) There is no wrangle amongst the contesting litigants, vis-a-vis, the applicability qua the petitioners, of the policy for regularization. The trite acid contest which erupts amongst the contesting litigants, is, confined to the entitlement of the writ petitioners to become regularised against the post of Clerks, and/or as contrarily contended by the respondents qua theirs being only entitled to be regularised against Class-IV vacancies.