LAWS(HPH)-2012-1-142

AMAR NATH, S/O SH. CHET RAM, R/O VILLAGE RAJPUR, P.O. JABLI, TEHSIL KASAULI, DISTRICT SOLAN Vs. SH. S. ROY, SECRETARY FOREST TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA,

Decided On January 04, 2012
Amar Nath, S/O Sh. Chet Ram, R/O Village Rajpur, P.O. Jabli, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan Appellant
V/S
Sh. S. Roy, Secretary Forest To The Government Of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was initially engaged in Dhaminana Nursery during 1986. He only worked for 15 days as a daily waged worker in the year 1986. Thereafter, he again worked for 90 days in Dhamiana Nursery in the year 1993. Petitioner has been working continuously as daily waged worker and has completed 240 days in each calendar year w.e.f. 01.01.1997 up to 31.07.2008 as per the supplementary affidavit filed by the respondents pursuant to the order dated 25.08.2011. Earlier stand of the respondent -State was that the petitioner has only worked up to 30.09.2007. In sequel to the directions issued by this Court in C.W.P. No. 173 of 2008, dated 27th May, 2010, the petitioner has made a representation. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla on 28.07.2011.

(2.) CASE of the petitioner before the authorities, in a nut -shell, was that since he has completed 8 years of service with 240 days in each calendar year, he was required to be regularized in the year, 2004. It has come in the reply filed by the respondents that the petitioner has not worked for eight years till 31st March, 2004. However, fact of the matter is that as per order dated 18th June, 2007, the incumbents who had completed eight years service on 31.3.2006 were required to be regularized. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he has not completed eight years service on 31.03.2004 and thereafter the sanction was granted by the Forest Department to fill up 1637 Class -IV posts on 7th August, 2007 and by that time, the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2007. In fact, the petitioner has completed eight years service on 31st March, 2005 and his case was required to be considered as per letter dated 18th June, 2007. Petitioner by that time has completed eight years of service. Petitioner has completed 10 years service on 31.01.2007 before his date of superannuation, i.e., 31.05.2007.