KAILASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that on 10/6/2005, petitioner was appointed as Pharmacist on contract basis. His services were regularized w.e.f. 6/8/2015, whereas the claim of the petitioner is that he should have been regularized w.e.f. 1/4/2012 on completion of six years of contract employment in terms of Regularization Policy dtd. 31/8/2012.

(3.) In response, the case of the respondents is that the petitioner was initially appointed against available vacancy on contract basis for a period of 89 days, on fixed monthly remuneration. His contract continued to be extended from time to time for a period of 89 days. This arrangement continued till March, 2008 and thereafter the contract of the petitioner was renewed on yearly basis. Thus, according to the respondents, the contract period of the petitioner till March, 2008, could not be considered for the purposes of regularization. The regularization of petitioner w.e.f. 6/8/2015, has been justified on aforesaid grounds.