To be Stricto Sensu there Shouldn’t be any Delay and Laches: High Court of Shimla
The petition cannot be ‘stricto sensu’ said to be within the limitation period provided under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act as it suffers from delay and laches. This honorable judgement was passed by High Court of Shimla in the case of Japan Singh Versus Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Visvavidyalaya, Palampur [CWPOA No.7832 of 2019] by Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
The Petitioner in this petition seeks regularization as Beldar w.e.f. the date when he completed eight years of service along with all consequential benefits. He was appointed in University as daily paid Labourer in July, 1994. His services were regularized as Beldar w.e.f. 06.07.2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was required to be regularized as Beldar w.e.f. 06.07.2002 on completion of eight years of service. The respondent-University had not denied the factual position that the petitioner had completed eight years of regular service as daily paid Labourer and the fact that the services of the petitioner were regularized as Beldar on 06.07.2008. It is against one of these posts that the petitioner was regularized on 06.07.2008.
Additionally, the posts of Beldar were not available for regularizing the daily wage employees. 2006 regularization policy of the State Government was circulated on 09.06.2006 in respect of regularization of those daily wagers, who had completed eight years of continuous service as on 31.03.2004 against vacant posts. The record shows that 2006 policy for regularization of daily wage workers, who had completed eight years of continuous service as on 31.03.2004, was adopted by the respondent-University vide notification dated 14.06.2007.
The court was opinioned that, “it is evident that the petitioner was not eligible for regularization under the 2000 regularization policy. Petitioner completed eight years of daily wage services as on 31.12.2002. However, the fact remains that he did not fall within the purview of 2000 regularization policy in existence at that time the policy was adopted by the respondent-University vide notification dated 14.06.2007. 169 posts for regularizing the services of daily wage Beldars were created in the respondent-University on 19.06.2008. The petitioner along with other similarly situated daily wage Beldars, 163 in number, was accordingly regularized on 06.07.2008. Petitioner had not been able to demonstrate any discrimination allegedly meted out to him.”
The court dismissed the petition stating that, “It also appears that the petitioner was satisfied with his regularization order issued on 06.07.2008. It is only a year later to his superannuation on 31.05.2015 that he woke up from slumber and filed instant petition on 01.05.2016 claiming regularization w.e.f. 2002. The petition cannot be stricto sensu said to be within the limitation period provided under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. Petition suffers from delay and laches.”