Employees on contract basis are entitled to regularization after eight years of service as per policy, regardless of post availability, and delays in regularization are unjustified.

JUDGMENT :

(Sandeep Sharma, J.)

Since common questions of facts and law are involved in both the above captioned cases and petitioners herein have prayed for similar reliefs, this court heard them together and now same are being disposed of vide common judgment.

2. Precisely, the facts of the cases, as emerge from the record, are that petitioners herein are employees of respondent No.3- Nagar Panchayat Gagret and Nagar Parishad Daulatpur Chowk, respectively. It is not in dispute that petitioner namely Ashok Kumar was engaged on contract basis as Tractor Operator by respondent No.3 on 14.8.2002, whereas petitioners namely Naresh Kumar and Shamsher Singh were appointed as Work Supervisor and Tractor Driver on contract basis on 3.1.2000 and 1.1.2000, respectively in Nagar Parishad Daulatpur. Since despite there being policy of regularization framed by Government of Himachal Pradesh for regularising, service of those contractual employees, who had rendered eight years continuous service on daily wage basis, services of the petitioners were not regularised, petitioners in both the cases are compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for reliefs, which are common in both the cases. For the sake of brevity, relief, as prayed for, in the CWP No.117 of 2023 are reproduced herein below:

“i. That appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on and with effect from August, 2010 i.e. on completion of 8 years of contract service with all consequential benefits of pay, arrear, seniority etc., as the similarly situated persons have also been regularized with a retrospective date on completion of 8 years of contract period service, in the interest of law and justice.”

3. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed reply in CWP No. 117 of 2023, wherein facts as have been noticed herein above, have not been disputed, rather stand admitted. An attempt has been made by the respondents to refute the claim of the petitioners on the ground of delay and laches. It is averred in the reply that since petitioners remained silent for nine years, they cannot be granted reliefs, as prayed for, in the instant petitions at this belated stage. It is further averred in the reply that as and when posts became available, petitioners herein were regularised and as such, no prejudice, if any, can be said to have been caused to the petitioners.

4. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while making this Court peruse reply filed by respondents No. 1 & 2, vehemently argued that petitioners herein cannot claim regularization from the date they had completed eight years of service on contract basis because at the relevant time, no sanctioned posts were available. While referring to the policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time, Mr. Panwar, argued that as per afore policy though an employee is entitled to be regularized after his/her having completed eight years of service, but against available vacancy. He further submitted that since vacancies became available at a later stage qua which petitioners were subsequently regularized, they were rightly granted benefit of regularization from that date only. While referring to the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.10747 of 2012-E, titled Ashwani Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., which has been otherwise pressed into service by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Panwar, submitted that in afore case, proposal to sanction post against which services of the petitioners in that could be regularized, stood initiated in the relevant year, however, in the instant case, no such proposal was ever initiated and posts against which, subsequently, petitioners came to be regularized, became available in the year 2013 only.

5. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, learned counsel appeari