***

SANDEEP SHARMA, J. (ORAL) –

That between the year 2002 to 2006, petitioners herein were given appointment on contract basis as Class-IV Helpers at Regional Hospital, Bilaspur by respondent No.3, Rogi Kalyan Samiti, and since then they had been rendering services in aforesaid capacity to the utmost satisfaction of their employer. Since despite petitioners having completed more than eight years service, their case was not considered for regularization, they were compelled to approach erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application No.1060 of 2017, which now on account of its abolishment stands transferred to this Court and has been re-registered as CWPOA No.1660 of 2020, praying therein for following main relief:-

“(i) That the respondents may be directed to regularize the services of the applicants strictly after completion of eight years of service from the date of initial appointment in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court as rendered in CWP No.1102 of 2011 titled  as Sanjay Rathour versus State of H.P. (Annexure A-1) which stands implemented vide Annexure A-2 and the judgment as passed in CWP No.7272 of 2011 titled as Neelam versus State of H.P. (Annexure A-3) alongwith all consequential benefits of seniority and arrears from the due date.”

2. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the pleadings adduced on record by respective parties to the lis, this Court finds that there is no dispute that petitioners herein after being offered appointment as Class-IV Helpers at Regional Hospital, Bilaspur, have successfully completed more than eight years and even as of today, they are rendering their services, except applicant No.1, who has retired during the pendency of the present petition. Though, services of the similar situate persons, who were either offered appointment by Rogi Kalyan Samiti or were working under the same stand regularized after their having completed eight years services in terms of the policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time.

3. In the case at hand, respondents though have not disputed factum with regard to completion of eight years service by the petitioners, but prayer made on their behalf for regularization has been sought to be opposed on the ground that their initial appointment was not made by the Government, but by Rogi Kalyan Samiti. No doubt, initially petitioners herein were given appointment on contract basis by Rogi Kalyan Samiti, but it is also not in dispute that persons, who were initially given appointment on contract basis by the Government but subsequently their services were taken over by Rogi Kalyan Samiti stand regularized in terms of judgment dated 28.5.2014 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1102 of 2011, titled as Sanjay and others versus State of H.P alongwith connected matter. In the aforesaid cases, persons, who were working under Rogi Kalyan Samiti, had approached this Court by way of writ petitions, as referred hereinabove, for issuance of direction to the respondents to regularize their services in terms of regularization policy framed by the government from time to time. Prayer made in aforesaid petitions was also opposed on the similar ground that they are not the employee of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, but of Rogi Kalyan Samiti but yet Co-ordinate Bench of this Court taking note of communication issued by Director Medical Education and Research, Himachal Pradesh sent to Principal Secretary(Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to the effect that services of the employees, who have completed more than six years service as on 31.3.2013 may be considered for regularization as per policy of the State Government, directed respondent-State to regularize the services of the persons working under Rogi Kalyan Samiti. It is not in dispute that pursuant to aforesaid judgment dated 28.5.2014, services of the petitioners therein were regularized, whereas petitioners herein despite having worked for more than 15 years are being not regularized.

4. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General vehemently argued that petitioners in CWP Nos. 1102 and 1119 of 2011 cannot be said to be similar situate to the petitioners herein for the reason that initially they were given appointment on contract basis by the government, but he was unable to dispute this fact that after certain point of time services of the petitioners in aforesaid cases were taken over by Rogi Kalyan Samiti and when their services were regularized in terms of the policy of regularization framed by Government of Himachal Pradesh, they were considered to be employee of Rogi Kalyan Samiti not of the government. Learned Additional Advocate General further argued that there is no policy to regularize services of the employees, who were given appointment by the private/independent autonomous society, but he was unable to explain that under what circumstances petitioners in CWP Nos. 1102 and 1119 of 2011, who at the time of their regularization were working under Rogi Kalyan Samiti, were regularized. If reply filed by the respondents to the afore petition is perused in its entirety, it clearly reveals that petitioners in aforesaid writ petitions though were initially engaged by the government for a period of one month and thereafter their services were taken over by Rogi Kalyan Samiti, meaning thereby services of the petitioners in aforesaid cases were regularized while they were employees of Rogi Kalyan Samiti not of the Government.

5. Moreover, this Court cannot loose sight of the fact that affairs of Rogi Kalyan Samiti are managed by Member Secretary-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Regional Hospital, Bilaspur, meaning thereby, for all intents and purposes, persons working in Rogi Kalyan Samiti are the employees of hospital not of the society. Leaving everything aside, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made in the instant petition for the reason that similar situate persons, as have been taken note hereinabove, have been already granted benefits, as has been prayed in the instant petition. Denial of the relief, as prayed for in the instant petition, would amount to sheer discrimination among similar situate persons, which is not permissible under law.

6. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is allowed and respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners strictly as per policy of the State Government, immediately after completion of eight years uninterrupted services by the petitioners with all consequential benefits, but petitioners shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits. The pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Petition allowed.

********