The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of employees to be regularized against the posts they were initially engaged in, and the relevance of prompt action in seeking legal remedies.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The writ petitioners aver that they were initially engaged as Clerks, on, a daily wage basis. On completion of the requisite tenure of service, on a daily wage basis, in the afore capacity, they were required to be regularised by the respondents in the afore capacity or against the afore post of clerks, against which they were earlier performing their duties. However, the respondents through the impugned office order, borne in Annexure P-2, ordered for their services being regularised against Class-IV post(s). Consequently, the writ petitioners feel aggrieved, and, they seek the making of a mandamus, upon, the respondents to regularise their services against the vacant posts of Clerks. Moreover, they also seek a mandamus being made, for setting aside and quashing of Annexure P-2. In addition, they seek the according to them, the wages of clerks, from the date of their initial engagement in the afore capacity along with all incidental thereto benefits.

2. The respondents, in their reply meted to the writ petition, contended that the writ petition is barred by vices of delay, and, laches, inasmuch, as, the writ petitioners accepted their regularisation against the post of Beldar, event whereof occurred on 9.4.2010. Consequently, the respondents contend that the writ petition instituted in the year 2010 is barred by delay, and, laches. Furthermore, they also contend that the acceptance by the writ petitioners of their regularization against the post of Beldar, tantamounts to theirs waiving, and, abandoning, their claim, if any, for theirs being regularized against the post of Clerk. Obviously, the respondents contend that the reliefs canvassed in the writ petition are mis-constituted, as, the afore ill conduct, estops them from claiming any relief against the respondents.

3. There is no wrangle amongst the contesting litigants, vis-a-vis, the applicability qua the petitioners, of the policy for regularization. The trite acid contest which erupts amongst the contesting litigants, is, confined to the entitlement of the writ petitioners to become regularised against the post of Clerks, and/or as contrarily contended by the respondents qua theirs being only entitled to be regularised against Class-IV vacancies.

4. The petitioners, for facilitating, their averments, make dependence upon Annexure P-1, wherein, there exists clear, and, categorical reflection(s) qua the writ petitioners, since the date of their initial engagement, rather performing the duties of Clerk(s). The authenticity of Annexure P-1, has not been attempted to be challenged, in the reply, furnished to the writ petition by the respondents. In sequel, the display(s) made in Annexure P-1, inasmuch, as, it making depictions, that the writ petitioners, since the date of their initial engagement, under, the respondents, performing duties of Clerk(s), on a daily wage basis, does acquire the gravest solemnity.

5. Be that as it may, the writ petitioners also placed dependence upon Annexure P-1, hence enclosing an order made by the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, HIMUDA, Shimla. Therein a candid recital occurs, vis-a-vis, an undertaking being made in the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal concerned, and, the undertaking enclosing recitals, vis-a-vis, the petitioners, since the date of their joining service under the respondents, on a daily wage basis, theirs performing duties of Clerk(s). Thereafter also a recital occurs in the concluding portion of Annexure P-1, that the author thereof, recommending, for, the writ petitioners, hence becoming regularised against the posts of Clerks. Even, the vigour of Annexure P-1, has not been endeavoured to be stripped off, of its authenticity(ies) by the respondents, by theirs contesting authenticity thereof. In sequel, the displays made therein acquire authenticity. Therefore, the respondents are barred/estopped from contending before this Court that the petitioners since the date of their initially joi