IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No:5792 of 2020 Decided On : 18th December, 2024 __________________________________________________________

Ajay Kumar ...Petitioner Versus The Executive Director (Personnel) ...Respondents HPSEBL, Shimla & ors.

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

1 Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner : Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate-HPSEBL.

Ranjan Sharma, Judge [Oral]

The petitioner [Ajay Kumar], a contractual Junior Engineer has come up before this Court seeking the following relief(s):-

(a). Quash the office order dated 04.07.2018 Annexure A-7 and all the other orders from which Annexure A-7 might have originated.

(b). Direct the respondents to count the study leave period of the applicant as regular services and grant him regularization w.e.f. 12.04.2018 along with all consequential benefits.”

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. Case set up by Learned Counsel is that the

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer [Civil] in Respondent-Board on contract basis and he joined as such on 23.12.2014 and while serving as a contractual employee, the petitioner applied for study leave [vide Annexure A-2] for completing his B. Tech. Degree Course from 1st April, 2015 to 20.06.2016 in continuation of the course which the petitioner had already joined prior to appointment. The study leave request was processed and conditional study leave was granted on 23.03.2015 [Annexure R-1/A3], with Condition No.3, in the communication dated 23.03.2015 [Annexure R-1/A3], that neither TA/DA nor salary shall be given during the period of study leave. It was mentioned that then period shall be treated as “without pay”. It was further stated that the period spent for pursuing the course of study/university examination will not be counted for regularization. The only grievance of the petitioner is that Respondent- Board had regularized the services of other contractual Junior Engineers on 12.04.2018 [Annexure A-5] whereas the petitioner has been denied this benefit and therefore, the period of study leave may be counted towards regularization as has been given to Mr. Hitesh Malhotra on 06.06.2014, Annexure A-6 (Colly), a contractual Junior Engineer who applied for study leave to complete his B. Tech. Degree on regular basis and the petitioner may be extended similar benefits.

Thus, in instant petition, prayer is made that the period of study leave of the petitioner from 1st April, 2015 to 30.06.2016 [for pursuing the B. Tech. Degree] should be counted towards seniority, continuity and regularization in Respondent-Board, but the Impugned Orders dated 04.07.2018 [Annexure A-7] mandating that the study leave is admissible only to regular staff may be quashed and set-aside.

STAND OF RESPONDENT-BOARD IN REPLY-

AFFIDAVIT:

3. Pursuant to issuance of notice in Original Application No.7446 of 2018 by State Administrative Tribunal, the respondents 1 to 3 have filed a Reply- Affidavit dated 11.03.2019 of Chief Engineer [PCA], Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. Shimla.

3(i). Perusal of Reply-Affidavit indicates that Respondent-Board has specifically relied upon Annexure R-1, dated 23.03.2015 and condition No.3 thereof, providing that the period to be spent for pursuing the above course of study/university examination will not be counted towards regularization. The Respondent-Board has relied upon the decision taken by Whole Time Directors of Respondent-Board on 25.06.2016 which was notified on 15.07.2016 [Annexure R-2], providing in Condition No.3 that the period of absence from duty to be spent on above course of study/university examination will not be counted for subsequent service related benefits, including regularization. The Reply-Affidavit further indicates that as per communication dated 26.06.2018 [Annexure R-3], the Respondent-Board has turned down the plea of study leave for contractual