SAVITRI CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this original application the appellant has inter alia claimed the following reliefs: "(1) That the respondents may be directed to regularize the applicant as a Clerk who effect from 1.4.1982 and alternatively with effect from 8.5.1985 with all consequential benefits. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to give to the applicant the arrears of salary due and permissible to her on account of relief at (1) above"

(2.) The case of the applicant as made out in the original application is that she possessed the requisite qualification and was given employment as a daily waged Clerk w. e. f. 1.4.1982 when the joined her duties as such. The employment of the applicant was extended from time to time and her experience certificate as having worked as a Clerk w. e. f. 1.4.1982 to 12.5.1985 is Annexure A -8. She bonafide believes that her case was recommended for regularisation but vide order dated May 8, 1985 (wrongly mentioned as 1995 in sub para 3 of para 6 of the original application) Annexure A -9 her services were ordered to be regularised as a Peon. She objected such appointment but on assurance by the S.D.O.(Civil) she accepted the appointment as a Peon. After appointment as a Peon and before that she has been discharging the duties and function of a Clerk but was neither given the pay of a Clerk nor her services were regularized as a Clerk. It is also her case that she made a representation (Annexure -A -19) in January 1994, but nothing fruitful happened till the filing of this original application. Vide para 5 of the original application she has claimed that her application is within limitation prescribed under section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the act).

(3.) The respondents filed reply wherein the claim of the applicant was contested inter alia on the ground of being barred by time.