YADOPATI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is working as Veterinary Pharmacist on contract basis under the State of Himachal Pradesh prays that the respondents -State be directed to appoint him on regular basis and not on contract basis against the vacant permanent regularly sanctioned substantive posts of Veterinary Pharmacists existing in the department.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the State Government must make permanent appointments under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the concept of making appointments on contractual basis is not permitted under the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner the practice of making appointments on contractual basis is highly illegal and against the mandate of the Constitution of India and against the judgment of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi(3) and others : (2006) 4 SCC 1.

(3.) THE stand of the State is that the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis. It is alleged that the petition having been filed four years after appointment is barred on the principle of delay and laches. The stand of the State is also that now a policy decision has been taken that contractual employees will be considered for regularization against available vacancies on completion of eight years of service and that as per the instructions issued from time to time even a contractual employee is entitled to a fixed amount of salary equal to the minimum of pay band + grade pay applicable to the corresponding cadre of employees working on regular basis in regular pay band.