TARA CHAND Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner canvassed before this Court that despite the petitioner having fulfilled the requisite eligibility criteria for his being conferred upon the status of regularization against the post of a peon, the respondents are omitting to do so. The constraint which is besetting the respondents to not confer or bestow the status of a regular workman upon the petitioner is anvilled upon his extantly not fulfilling the requisite prescribed qualification of matriculation. The enjoined necessity of the petitioner possessing the minimum educational qualification of matriculation to hence fasten a liability upon the respondents on his having completed the enjoined length of service as a daily rated workman for him, hence, to claim regularization, is prescribed in the relevant R & P Rules. The Learned Deputy Advocate General concedes to the factum that dehors the R&P Rules with the prescription therein for a daily wager claiming the status of a regular workman being enjoined to complete the requisite period of service as a daily waged workman and being also enjoined to possess the minimum qualification of matriculation, there also exist policy/guidelines issued by the State Government for regularization of daily wagers after completion of the requisite period of service. In the face of the prescription in the existing policy or guidelines issued by the State Government, a daily waged workman is entitled to regularization in service after completion of the requisite period. Further more, the present lis is covered by the judgment of this Court rendered on 24.12.2014 in CWP No. 5098 of 2014, titled as Kamal Chand versus State of H.P. & Others, the relevant portion whereof reads as under: - -

(2.) WITH the prescription in the citation referred to herein above of insistence by an employer for possession of minimum educational qualification by a claimant, claiming regularization in service being both a tenable and a reckonable factor, yet fulfillment of the minimum prescribed educational criteria by an aspirant/claimant for eligiblizing his claim for regularization ought to be insisted upon, only at the time of his initial entry into the service and when an aspirant/claimant, claiming regularization is permitted to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and oppressive to deny him the benefit of regularization against the post wherein he had rendered the requisite length of service in a daily rated capacity merely on account of his not possessing the prescribed educational qualification. Consequently, when the petitioner herein at the time of his initial entry into service under the respondents as a daily wager did not possess the minimum qualification or when at the germane and relevant time of his initial entry into service under the respondents, the respondents omitted to press into service the R&P Rules against the petitioner, hence, now given the requisite length of service rendered by the petitioner under the respondents and concomitant experience having been gained by him, it would be insagacious and oppressive at this belated stage for the respondents to insist upon its possession by the petitioner more especially with its having not been reckoned at the time of his initial entry into service, it is to be construed to be waived off. Consequently, taking into consideration the requisite length of service rendered by the petitioner under the respondents, hence, entitling him to claim regularization in service, the denial of his claim to regularization by the respondents merely upon his not possessing the minimum educational qualification is untenable as well as unworkable, rather would perpetuate hardship to the petitioner.