MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this court for grant of following substantive relief: -

(2.) THE uncontroverted facts are that petitioner was engaged as a daily waged Beldar on 1.6.1983 and worked as such up to 30.4.1985. Thereafter he worked as an Assistant Fitter w.e.f. 1.5.1985 to 24.7.1987 and thereafter he worked as daily -waged Fitter w.e.f. 25.7.1987 up to 18.1.1995. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that when it got down to regularization of his services, instead of being regularized as a Fitter, the respondents regularized his services as Beldar, that too from the years 2004, while the private respondents who had been appointed much after the petitioner in the year 1990, had been regularized prior to the petitioner.

(3.) THE stand of the respondents to say the least is absolutely unfair not only qua the petitioner but even as against the private respondents themselves. The respondent is a model employer and what has been expected from model employer has been succinctly dealt with by this court in LPA No. 386 of 2012 titled H.P. State Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. Shri Rajesh Kumar Kashyap, decided on 7.4.2014, wherein it has been held as follows: -