STATE OF H.P. Vs. DR. ROHIT SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the State has assailed order, dated 31.03.2016, passed by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Shimla in T.A. No. 1710 of 2015, vide which, learned Tribunal disposed of the Transfer Application in the following terms:

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that respondents before this Court joined the services of the respondent-State as Veterinary Officer on contract basis in June 2006. Vide instructions, dated 17th August, 2012, issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Himachal Pradesh, on the subject "Regularization of contract appointees in the Government DepartmentsInstructions thereof", it was notified that matter regarding regularization of services of contractual employees working in various departments which was under consideration of the Government, stood decided by the Government, wherein a decision had been taken to regularize the services of the contractual appointees after completion of six years of service, provided they had been engaged as such after observing all codal formalities. By virtue of said instructions right of regularization accrued upon the present respondents on completion of six years of service as contract employees, as they had been engaged after observing all codal formalities. However, Department of Personnel again issued instructions, dated 31st August, 2012, wherein it was mentioned that the Government has decided to regularize the services of only those contractual appointees after completion of six years service, who had put in six years of service on contract basis as on 31.03.2012. Present respondents were aggrieved by the issuance of the said instructions, dated 31st August, 2012, because as per them, the right of regularization, which had accrued upon them vide instructions, dated 17th August, 2012, was arbitrarily curtailed by mentioning a cut off date, i.e., 31.03.2012. As per the present respondents, as a result of this arbitrary act on the part of the respondent-State, their regularization was delayed by nine months' time, as rather than their services being regularized after completion of six years of service on contract basis, the respondent-State regularized their services on 31.03.2013. Accordingly, they assailed the said act of the State by filing CWP No. 8926/2012. The impugned instructions were inter alia also challenged on the ground that whereas instructions, dated 17th August, 2012 were in consonance with the decision of the Cabinet, i.e. the decision taken vide Item No. 27 in the Cabinet meeting held on 08.08.2012, which correctly stood reflected in instructions, dated 17.08.2012, however, the subsequent instructions, dated 31.08.2012, were not in consonance with the decision of the Cabinet, dated 08.08.2012, as there was no cut off date mentioned in the Cabinet decision.

(3.) This writ petition was subsequently transferred to the learned Administrative Tribunal and the same stood disposed of vide order, dated 31.03.2016, which we have already quoted above, which stands assailed before this Court by way of this writ petition.