RAMESH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT Civil Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is pleaded that Sh Ramesh petitioner is the Nepali citizen and is employed in HP State Forest Development Corporation on daily wages as mason on dated 1.4.1994. It is pleaded that on 31.3.2002 petitioner completed eight years of daily wage service and is legally entitled for regularization of his service. It is further pleaded that petitioner is legally entitled for work charge status in view of the order passed by High Court of HP in CWP No. 4866 of 2010 titled Kharak Singh Vs. State of HP decided on 6.10.2010. It is further pleaded that eligibility certificate was issued on 10.06.2011 but till date petitioner is not regularized. It is further pleaded that respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner to regularize the services of the petitioner. It is further pleaded that even option given by the petitioner for regularization of his service as un -skilled worker but till date petitioner is not regularized. Prayer for regularization of service as mason sought from 01.04.1994 with all consequential benefits. In alternative regularization of services of petitioner as mason sought like other 1030 daily wagers in various government departments.

(2.) PER contra reply filed on behalf of respondents pleaded therein that present petitioner is Nepali citizen and is employed as daily wager in the HP State Forest Development Corporation. It is pleaded that dispute is covered under Industrial Disputes Act. It is further pleaded that as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the Government of HP as amended and conveyed vide memorandum No. PER AP -11 0 A (3) 2/80 dated 11.7.2000 only Indian citizen are entitled for employment under the Government of Himachal Pradesh. It is further pleaded that petitioner is a Nepali citizen and is not Indian and he is not legally entitled for regularization of his service. It is further pleaded that eligibility certificate was issued from the competent authority as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules. It is further pleaded that earlier Nepalese were entitled to government service on production of eligibility certificate. It is further pleaded that according to amended rules only Indian citizens are entitled for regularization of service. It is further pleaded that merely issuance of eligibility certificate did not entitle the petitioner for regularization of his service. It is further pleaded that regularization of service in public post is based upon as per terms and conditions of Recruitment and Promotion Rules and as per availability of vacancy. It is further pleaded that as of today there is no regular post of mason in the HP State Forest Development Corporation. It is further pleaded that HP State Forest Development Corporation is making efforts to adjust the petitioner as unskilled worker against the vacancy and matter has been taken with the State Government. It is further pleaded that petitioner has given offer for regularization of his service as unskilled worker. It is further pleaded that petitioner will be appointed on the post of unskilled worker after the approval received from the Government. It is further pleaded that as of today there is no regular post of mason available with the HP State Forest Development Corporation. It is further pleaded that although respondent Corporation has initiated a process of offering alternate regularization as a unskilled worker in its Rosin & Turpentine Factories at Bilaspur/Nahan against vacancy and petitioner has also opted for such regularization but petitioner did not fulfill requisite qualification for the post of unskilled worker as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules being illiterate. It is admitted that petitioner is working as mason with the respondent -Corporation w.e.f. 1.8.1998. It is denied that petitioner is working on daily wages since 01.04.1994. It is well settled law that as per ruling of the Apex Court of India regularization of the service of daily wager is possible only when regular vacancy is available. Prayer for dismissal of writ petition sought. Petitioner also filed rejoinder and re -asserted the allegation pleaded in the civil writ petition.

(3.) FOLLOWING points arise for determination in the present writ petition: