MANOHAR LAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was engaged as Chainman on daily wage basis on 9.1.1996. He was terminated on 31.7.2003. The petitioner assailed the said termination order before this Court by way of CWP(T) No. 9536 of 2008 and this Court vide judgment dated 10.8.2011 set aside the termination of the petitioner by directing the respondents to re -engage the petitioner as Chainman with continuity of service and seniority but without back wages. In sequel to the judgment dated 10.8.2011, the respondents reengaged the petitioner on 19.5.2012 and petitioner joined as such on 24.5.2012. Now his grievance is that though his junior has been regularised on 20.12.2007 his services have not been regularised.

(2.) IN the reply filed by the respondents, it is claimed that the proforma respondent Rakesh Kumar had been appointed as daily waged Chainman w.e.f. 10.1.1996 and his services had been regularised on 20.12.2007 as per the regularisation policy prevalent at that time. It is claimed that when the services of the said Rakesh Kumar had been regularised, the petitioner was not in service and it is further claimed that though the petitioner has been re -engaged as daily waged Chainman, his services will be regularised accordingly against the vacant posts available in the Department, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be regularised on and with effect from the date when Rakesh Kumar had been regularised.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , the present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to regularise the services of the petitioner from the date when the junior person Rakesh Kumar has been regularised with effect from 20.12.2007 with all consequential benefits within a period of four weeks from today. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.