Belated claims for retrospective regularization from daily wage appointment date barred by acquiescence in accepting it, prolonged delay, laches after prospective regularization acceptance; stale claims not revived by late representation.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Petitioners, Tarsem Singh and 29 others had instituted an Original Application No. 1983 of 2019, which stood transferred to the State Administrative Tribunal and upon its abolition the same stands transferred to this Court as CWPOA No. 6532 of 2019 seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) that the impugned Annexure A-4, dated 16.01.2019, whereby Respondent No.2 has rejected the representation made by the Applicants may kindly be quashed and set-aside.
(ii). That the Respondents may kindly be directed to treat applicants as regular appointees from the date of their initial appointment i.e. w.e.f. year 1999 alongwith all consequential benefits including seniority and arrears of pay and allowances alongwith due and admissible interest, in the interest of justice.

FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Grievance as set up is that the petitioners being eligible for Class-IV posts in the respondent- department were sponsored by the Employment Exchanges of the State for recruitment as Class-IV employees against sanctioned posts and pursuant to initiation of selection process they participated in the interview held on 07.04.1999. It is averred that though the petitioners had a right to be considered for regular appointment but the respondent-department appointed the petitioners as Class-IV on daily wage basis on 05.05.1999 [Annexure A-1 in case of petitioner No. 1 Tarsem Singh]. It is averred that pursuant to appointment of the petitioners as Class-IV on daily wage basis on 05.05.1999 the petitioners joined as daily wage Class-IV employee in the respondent- department. It is averred that petitioners continued to serve as daily waged Class-IV from the date of their initial joining in May 1999 and in pursuance to the letter issued by Principal Secretary [Ayurveda] to Government of Himachal Pradesh dated 05.02.2009 and on the recommendations made by Screening Committee on 16.02.2009 [Annexure A-2 Colly] their services were regularized by appointing them as Class- IV, in pay scale of Rs.2520-4140 with immediate effect. It is averred that after regularization on 16.02.2009, the petitioners accepted their regular appointment and continued to work in the respondent department. It is averred that the petitioners submitted a representation [undated Annexure A-3 at page 27 of the paper book] requesting that once the selection process was initiated for appointing the petitioners as Class-IV on regular basis, then, the petitioners could not have been appointed as Class-IV on daily wage basis on 05.05.1999 [Annexure A-1]. This representation was rejected by Director Ayurveda on 16.01.2019 [Annexure A-4], on the ground that 150 posts of daily wage Class-IV were filled by respondent-department on the basis of the approval of the State Government. Rejection order further indicates that the name of the petitioners were sponsored by the Employment Exchanges and accordingly they were engaged as daily wage Class-IV in the respondent-department. Rejection order further indicates that the interviews were conducted by the department on 07.04.1999 for recruitment as daily wage Class-IV posts and not for regular Class-IV posts. Rejection order further indicates that since the petitioners were appointed as daily waged in the year 1999 and have completed requisite service as per the regularization policy and the petitioners were regularized in February, 2009, therefore, the petitioners cannot turn around and claim regular appointment from the date they were initially appointed as Class-IV. It is in this background, that the Rejection order dated 16.01.2019 [Annexure A-4], is assailed in the instant petition.

STAND OF RESPONDENT-STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY-AFFIDAVIT:
3. Pursuant to issuance of notice on 29.05.1999, the State Authorities have filed the Reply-Affidavit dated 04.07.2019 of Director Ayurveda, Himachal Pradesh.
3(i). Para 1 of Reply-Affidavit, specifically and ve