RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contractual service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 19/9/2005 till March, 2008 has not been considered by the respondents towards regularization of his services. Hence, he has filed the instant writ petition for the following substantive relief:-

(2.) The facts which come out from the pleadings of the parties are that:-

(3.) The stand taken by the respondents in their reply as canvassed by learned Senior Additional Advocate General is that the petitioner's contractual service period was renewed on year to year basis only after March, 2008. Hence, only the contractual service put in by the petitioner on year to year basis on and w.e.f. March, 2008 was required to be considered for regularization. Petitioner had not completed six years of contractual service as on 31/3/2012 required for regularization under the policy dtd. 31/8/2012. Therefore, his case was not covered under the policy dtd. 31/8/2012. In support of these submissions, reliance was placed upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 24/3/2022 in Civil Appeal No.1951 of 2022, titled The State of Gujarat and others Versus R.J. Pathan and others.