SANDEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that petitioner herein, who was initially appointed as Patwari in the year, 2011 on contract basis, ought to have been regularized after his having completed five years service on contract basis in the year, 2016 in terms of policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. However, such benefit has been illegally denied to him on account of pendency of criminal case registered against him at the time of consideration of his case alongwith other similarly situate persons for regularization.

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that petitioner herein was appointed as Patwari on contract basis on 10/6/2011. In the year 2015, a criminal case came to be registered against the petitioner, as a result thereof, his services were terminated, but subsequently pursuant to order passed by the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal, he was reinstated w.e.f. 1/1/2016. In the year 2016, case of the petitioner alongwith other similarly situate persons came to be considered for regularization in terms of policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, whereby it came to be decided that persons, who have worked regularly for five years on contract basis as Patwari shall be regularized from the date of such period, however at that stage Screening Committee refused to regularize the services of the petitioner on account of pendency of criminal case against him. Screening Committee constituted by the then Deputy Commissioner, Una vide order dtd. 22/9/2016 though considered the case of the petitioner for regularization, but did not recommend his name for the reason, as detailed hereinabove (Annexure R-3). Vide application dtd. 22/6/2023, petitioner herein informed respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, Una that he has been honourably acquitted by the Court of learned Special Judge, Una vide judgment dtd. 9/6/2023 (Annexure P-5) in the criminal case registered against him under Ss. 7,13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and as such, he be regularized w.e.f.1/10/2016 alongwith all consequential benefits (Annexure R-IV). However, afore prayer of him again came to be rejected by Screening Committee constituted by respondent No.2 vide order dtd. 28/3/2024. Screening Committee vide its proceedings/report dtd. 7/6/2024 while placing reliance upon letter No.Rev-A-B015/6/2023, dtd. 6/3/2024 though considered the case of the petitioner for regularization but not w.e.f. 2016, rather from the year 2024. Since petitioner was not considered for regularization w.e.f. 2016 when other similarly situate persons were regularized, he is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main relief:-

(3.) Reply filed by the respondents, if perused in its entirety, nowhere disputes facts, as have been noted hereinabove, rather stand admitted. Attempt has been made to defeat the rightful claim of the petitioner on the ground that in terms of Department letter No. No.Rev-A-B015/6/2023, dtd. 6/3/2024, issued by respondent No.2, there is no provision of considering regularization from retrospective date. After having perused aforesaid communication, which has been otherwise reproduced in the reply filed by the respondents, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have misconstrued/ misinterpreted the afore communication. It would be apt to take note of aforesaid communication herein below:-