KULDEEP SINGH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:­ The petitioner claims that he was engaged as a Daily Wage Surveyor w.e.f. 1/1/1994. As per him, though the muster roll of Surveyor was issued to him, yet the work of Junior Engineer was extracted from him by the Department. Further, according to the petitioner, he was entitled for being regularized against the post of Junior Engineer w.e.f. 1/1/2002. However, this was not done and his services were regularized vide order dtd. 6/7/2007, which action of the Department is totally against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench this Court in Gouri Dutt and Ors. Versus State of H.P. Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366 as well as other decisions rendered by this Court, reference whereof is given in Para 6.7 of the amended plaint. It is in this background that the petition has been filed with the prayer that direction be issued to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner against the post of Junior Engineer w.e.f. 1/1/2002 on the basis of law laid down by this Court in Gouri Dutt and Ors. Versus State of H.P. (supra).

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance upon this Court in Gouri Dutt and Ors. Versus State of H.P. (supra) has vehemently argued that the act of the respondent­Department of not following the said judgment in the course of regularizing the service of the petitioner is totally arbitrary. Learned counsel further submitted that as the case of the petitioner was squarely covered by the pronouncement of law made by this Court in Gouri Dutt and Ors. Versus State of H.P. (supra), therefore, the act of the respondent­ State of regularizing the service of the petitioner as a junior engineer w.e.f. 6/7/2007 be declared as bad in law and the services of the petitioner be ordered to be regularized as Junior Engineer, w.e.f. 1/1/2007, with all consequential benefits. No other point was urged.

(3.) The petition is opposed by the State, inter alia, on the ground that the reliance being placed upon the judgment of Gouri Dutt and Ors. Versus State of H.P. (supra) by the petitioner is totally mis­misconceived. Learned Additional Advocate General has argued that it is not as if the petitioner was initially engaged as a Surveyor and thereafter as a Junior Engineer on daily wage basis, but while regularizing his services, his services were regularized as a Surveyor without calling upon him to opt as to whether he intended to be regularized as a Surveyor or Junior Engineer. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that here is a case where services of the petitioners were regularized as a Junior Engineer only and that too as per his seniority as determined vis­a­vis his status when he was initially engaged on muster roll basis as Junior Engineer. On these basis, it has been prayed that the present petition being devoid of any merit be dismissed.