DEEPAK GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Senior Assistant in the respondent-department, is aggrieved of order dtd. 22/3/2025 (Annexure P-11), whereby representation, having been filed by him in terms of order dtd. 17/6/2024 passed by this Court in CWP No.5041 of 2024, titled as Deepak Gupta Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, praying therein to grant him the benefit of regularisation from the date of his initial appointment, came to be rejected.

(2.) For having bird's eye view, relevant facts, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, are that petitioner, who is a hearing impaired (Person with Disability), came to be called by the office of Engineer-in-Chief, IPH Department, Himachal Pradesh, vide communication dtd. 15/2/2008 (Annexure P-1) for interview to the post of Clerk on contract basis. Careful perusal of aforesaid communication reveals that the post of Clerk, qua which petitioner was called for interview, was to be filled up from the category of Persons with Disabilities. Subsequently, as per Regularisation Policy of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, petitioner was regularised by Superintending Engineer, IPH Circle Nahan, vide office order dtd. 1/6/2015, after completion of requisite number of years on contract basis.

(3.) In the year 2015, petitioner filed OA No.3476 of 2015, titled as Deepak Gupta Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal'), seeking therein direction to respondents to give him appointment on regular basis from the date of his initial appointment on account of his being disabled. Afore case filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dtd. 24/9/2015 (Annexure P-3) with the direction to respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in terms of judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.811 of 2011, however, fact remains that representation having been filed by the petitioner, pursuant to directions contained in afore order, was rejected by the respondents vide order dtd. 14/10/2016 (Annexure P-4). Similarly situate person, namely Dila Ram, who in terms of memorandum dtd. 24/4/2008, was appointed against the post of Clerk against 3% quota for physically disabled persons on contract basis, approached the Tribunal by way of Original Application, which, on account of abolishment of the Tribunal, came to be transferred to this Court and was registered as CWPOA No.5077 of 2020, praying therein for following reliefs: