IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the petitioner's services should have been regularized from 1.1.1999 as per the regularization policy, and the plea of delay and laches was rejected due to the financial loss caused to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Petitioner herein was engaged as a Chowkidar with the Respondent -Corporation in the year, 1990 and since then, he had been regularly working on daily wage basis with 240 days in each calendar year till the time his services came to be terminated vide order dated 31.3.1997. In the year, 1997, a theft took place at Solan Forest Depot and petitioner was found absent from duty at that point of time, as a result thereof, his services were terminated by the Respondent-Corporation vide order dated 31.3.1997. Aforesaid termination order dated 31.3.1997 came to be assailed by the petitioner before the erstwhile HP Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application, however, on account of its abolishment, the same came to be transferred to this Court. However, before the same could be decided by this Court, matter again came to be transferred to erstwhile HP Administrative Tribunal on account of its re-establishment and was registered as TA No. 3577 of 2015. Vide order dated 10.5.2016, erstwhile Tribunal allowed the Transfer Application and set - aside the termination order dated 31.3.1997. Vide aforesaid order, though erstwhile Tribunal held the petitioner entitled for regularization and seniority, but without any back wages.

2. Aforesaid order dated 10.5.2016, was further laid challenge in this Court by the respondents vide CWP No. 893 of 2019, but the fact remains that the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 18.12.2019. This Court while passing aforesaid judgment held petitioner entitled for back wages w.e.f. 10.5.2017. This Court reserved liberty to the petitioner to make representation for regularization of his services, within two weeks from the date of passing of judgment in accordance with regularization policy.

3. Having taken note of the representation filed by the petitioner in terms of aforesaid judgment passed by this Court, respondents considered the case of the petitioner for regularization w.e.f. 1.1.1999, but ordered his regularization w.e.f. 20.8.2007 i.e. from the date his juniors were regularized.

4. Since petitioner had actually completed eight years daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year in December, 1998 and he had become entitled for regularization w.e.f. 1.1.1999 in terms of the regularization policy framed and adopted by the Respondent-Corporation, he was compelled to approach this Court by way of instant petition, praying therein for following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ of Certiorari, Mandamus Or other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, directing the Respondents to modify the order dated 2.12.2020 ( Annexure P-5) to the extent that the service of the petitioner be regularized after completion of 8 years of service w.e.f. 1.1.1999 with all consequential benefits.

ii) In case relief No.i) is granted, accordingly Issue a writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents to re-fix the pay of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1999 and pay/release the arrear in favour of the petitioner alongwith 12% interest.”

5. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner is that once it is not in dispute that petitioner was initially engaged as Chowkidar by the Respondent-Corporation in the year, 1990 and he had completed eight years daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year in the year, 1998, his services ought to have been regularized w.e.f. 1.1.1999. Mr. Singh further argued that though services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 31.3.1997, but since such order was subsequently set-aside by the competent court of law and petitioner was also held entitled for back wages, order dated 2.12.2020, thereby regularizing services of the petitioner w.e.f. 20.8.2007, needs to be modified. Mr. Singh also disputed the claim of the respondents that services of the petitioner have been reg