JUDGMENT Mr. Narinder Thakur, Honble Vice Chairman. In the present original application the applicant is praying for the following relief- 1. Quash the impugned inaction of the respondent department whereby the respondents are not regularizing the service of the applicant against the post of class- III, being arbitrary, malafide and illegal. : 2. Direct the respondent to regularizes the service of the applicant against the post of class-III from the date of her juniors were regularized with all consequential benefits and interest on the arrears 18 % per annum from the due date till the date of regularization. 2. The facts as pleaded are that the applicant is a matriculate and she was initially engaged as daily wager w.e.f. 10.6.1989 and was given appointment letter for six months on 24.7.1989 and ever since she has put in 240 days service in each calendar year, and as well as she has completed 14 years of service which is more than minimum eight years of service which entities the applicant for regularization of her service in accordance with Rules and the law settled by the Honble Supreme Court. The applicant has become due for regularization w.e.f. 1997. 3. It is further averred that the respondents/department gave fictional breaks in her service in November, 1990 in as much as the junior persons (more particularly one Shahida Begum) were retained by the respondent and the applicant was orally terminated with a view to deprive the applicant of her legitimate right of being regularized with the efflux of time. Against the said illegal termination, she filed an original application No. 482/91 before this Tribunal which was however withdrawn with liberty on 08.04.1993, (Annexure-A1). Thereafter, the applicant approached the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh by filing CWP No. 344/93 and the Honble High Court was pleased to issue interim orders on 20.4.1993 (Annexure-A2) whereby it was directed that the applicant be re-regaged immediately. In pursuance to this interim orders, the applicant re-joined the service with the respondent/department on 22.4.1993. The said writ petition also came to be finally disposed off by the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh on 21.06.1993 (Annexure-A3). Ever since, the applicant continued on the same post uninterruptedly. 4. It is averred that once the applicant has been taken back in service by the respondent department the whole period of fictional break was to count towards the seniority etc. Ever since, the applicant continued on the same post uninterruptedly. 4. It is averred that once the applicant has been taken back in service by the respondent department the whole period of fictional break was to count towards the seniority etc. of the applicant as per the laid down law in this regard. 5. It is also averred that some junior persons namely S/Sh. Md. Shabeer, Time Keeper, Mohan Lal Kanwar, Lab Assistant, Shameshwar Kanwar, Time keeper, Ramesh Koshal, Plant Helper were engaged in the like manner on daily waged basis after the applicant against the posts of office helper/plant helper (Class-IV) posts. The junior persons have been engaged on daily waged basis in the month of June, 1990, and as such, they are far junior to the applicant. While regularizing the service of these junior persons, the respondent department has directly regularized them against the Class-III posts by ignoring the claim of the applicant for being considered against the post of Class-III despite the fact that the applicant too is duly qualified and senior to all of them. It is averred that the above named junior persons have worked for more, period on class-IV posts, and as such, they are to be regularized against the post of Class-IV only in accordance with the policy of the State Government and this position will be cleared from the record. So far filling up of the Class-III posts are concerned they were to be filled up by first considering the claim of the eligible senior persons like the applicant It is stated that the copy of the impugned order of regularizing the above named junior persons is not with the applicant as such, respondent department may kindly be directed to place the same on record for kind perusal of this Court for quashing the same. 6. It is further stated that the respondent department has regularized the service of similar situated junior persons and has discriminated against the applicant. The respondent department has regularized the service of one Shri Mohd. Shraf even when he was short of 23 days for completion of 240 days in an year. Likewise, the respondent department has regularized the service of one Smt Vijay Kumari, despite the fact that she was also given fictional breaks for the period the applicant was given and she did not even approach the Honble Court. Shraf even when he was short of 23 days for completion of 240 days in an year. Likewise, the respondent department has regularized the service of one Smt Vijay Kumari, despite the fact that she was also given fictional breaks for the period the applicant was given and she did not even approach the Honble Court. The applicant in this regard filed a representation to the respondent on 20.9.1998, 7.11.1998 and 28.12.1998 which was sent by respondent No. 2 on 23.1.1999 (Annexure-A4). Thereafter, again the applicant made a delayed representation on 28.5.1999, 28.8.1999, which was sent on 30.8.1999 (Annexure-A5). Finally, the applicant made a delayed representation on 20.10.1999 and thereafter, on 21.11.2000. The respondent department does not seem to be giving due consideration to the same. 7. In the reply filed by respondent/corporation it has been stated that the case of the applicant for regularization of her services can only be considered after new policy/guidelines are issued by the Government for regularizing the services of daily wagers. In fact, as per the earlier policy the cases covered upto 31.3.2000 under eight years criteria were only to be considered. Since, the applicant fails to fulfill the said criteria, therefore, her case could not be considered for regularization by that time. In case any guidelines for regularization the service of the daily wagers were received from the Government in near future, the case of the applicant will be considered: It has been denied that the applicant has put 240 days service in each calendar year and, as such, completed 14 years of service as alleged. It is also denied that the applicant has become entitled for regularization w.e.f. 1997. It is stated that as per the earlier policy of the Government the cases of daily wage workers were to be considered for regularization till 31.3.2000 after completing eight years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar years. The applicant fails to fulfill this criteria, and, as such, her case could not be considered for regularizing her services under the said policy. As per this policy the daily waged workers who completed eights years up to 31.3.2000, were only to be considered for regularisation. Since, the applicant fails to complete eight years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year upto 31.3.2000, therefore, she could not be considered. As per this policy the daily waged workers who completed eights years up to 31.3.2000, were only to be considered for regularisation. Since, the applicant fails to complete eight years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year upto 31.3.2000, therefore, she could not be considered. It is further submitted here hat after 31.3.2000 no further directions/guidelines are issued by the State Government It is, however, submitted that as per the said policy the cases of so many workers who have completed eights years regular service with 240 days upto 31.3.2000 had already been considered by the replying respondent and the case of the applicant could not be considered as she fails to full-fill the requisite criteria by that time. 8. It is averred in the reply that no fictional breaks were given. It is admitted that the applicant filed original application No. 482/1991 and CWP No. 344/93 and the order in these cases were complied with. It is denied that the period of break was to be counted for the periods of seniority. It is averred that the applicant in the year 1991-92 did not work even for a single day with respondent and thus can not claim seniority for this period, it is averred that the persons S/Sh. Mohd. Shabeer, Mohan Lal Kanwar, Shameshwar Kanwar and Ramesh Chand Kanwar were engaged on daily waged in different section of factory of the respondent It is denied that they were junior to the applicant It is averred that the services of the persons mentioned in para 6.4. were regularized against Class-III posts after considering their nature of job being performed by them prior to 31.3.2000, when steps for regularization under the criteria of eight years with 240 days were taken into consideration. It is denied that the claim of the applicant was ignored by that time. The claim of the applicant could not be considered as she was not fulfill the requisite criteria when the services of the employees named in para-6.4 were regularized. It is further averred that though the persons named in para 6.4 were initially engaged against Class-IV) on daily waged but the Management again after verifying their higher nature of job being performed by them from their initial engagement had taken the steps to regularize their services in Class-Ill category on the analogy on equal wages for equal work after observing all the coda formalities. It is averred that the claim of the applicant for the post of Class-III could not be considered as she has not performed the work of Class-III as were being performed by the persons named in para-6.4. It is stated that the case of the applicant for regularizing can be considered m case any fresh guidelines are issued or any policy framed by the State Government in near future. It is stated that the representations of the applicant were considered and thus rejected. The claim of the applicant for counting the seniority from 24.7.1989 was rejected in view of the fact that the applicant has not worked continuously after initially engagement and even after 14.11.1990 to 27.4.1993, the applicant was not on the role of the respondent for which period the applicant is also not entitled for the seniority, 9. The case was taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties. 10. I have heard the rival contention of the learned counsel representing their respective parties at length and have gone through the pleadings and the record of the case very carefully. 11. Admittedly, the applicant was engaged on 10.6.1999. Thereafter, her services were terminated on 14.11.1990. Again the said termination on 14.11.1990. Again the said termination, the applicant filed an original applicant No. 482/1991 which she withdrew with liberty on 8.4.1993 (annuxre-A1). Then she filed CWP No.344/93 before the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and the Honble High "Court of H.P. on 22.4.1993 (Annexure-A2) was pleased to direct the respondents to re-engage the applicant The respondent department accordingly, re-engage the applicant and the writ petition ultimately came to be disposed of on 216.1993 (Annexure-A3). The applicant is ever since continuing on the same post from which she was dis-engaged in November, t990 in terms of the order of the Honble High Court of HP. The Honble Apex Court in its judgment reported in 2002 (9) SCC-492 titled as Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others has held as under- "Para-3. Having heard the teamed counsel for the parties and on examining the material on record, we fail to understand hew the continuity of service could be denied once the plaintiff is directed to be reinstated. In service on setting aside the order of termination. St is not a case of fresh appointment, but it is a case of reinstatement. Having heard the teamed counsel for the parties and on examining the material on record, we fail to understand hew the continuity of service could be denied once the plaintiff is directed to be reinstated. In service on setting aside the order of termination. St is not a case of fresh appointment, but it is a case of reinstatement. That being the position, direction of the High Court that the plaintiff will not get continuity of service cannot be sustained and we set aside that part of the impugned order. So far as the arrears of salary is concerned, we see no infirmity with the direction which was given by appellate court taken into account the facts and circumstances including the fact that the suit was filed after a considerable length of time. Such part of decree denying the arrear stands allowed in part to the extent indicated above...". 12. In view of the above settled Segal position, the contention of the respondents that the applicant has not actually worked for the period from 14.10.1990 to 27.4.1993 be cannot sustained once she has been re-engaged in pursuance to the order of the Honble Court and continuing thereafter till date. It is not the case of the respondents that she has been given fresh appointment. Rather the directions of the Honble High Court are dear and unambiguous in directing the respondents to re-engage the applicant against the same service/job from which she was earlier dis-engaged. 13. The Honble Supreme Court has laid down following guidelines for regularization of daily wagers in the judgment reported in 1994 (2) SLR-377 titled as Mool Raj Upadhaya Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and ors:- 1. Daily-Wage/Muster Roll Workers, Whether skilled or unskilled, who have completed 10 years or more of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year December 31,1993, shall be appointed as work-charged employee with effect from January 1, 1994 and shall be put in the time scale of pay applicable to the corresponding lowest grade in the Government; 2. Daily-wage/Muster Roll Workers, Whether skilled or unskilled, who have not completed 10 years of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on December 31, 1993, shall be appointed as work-charged employees with effect from the date they completed the said period of 10 years of service and on such appointment they shall be put in the time scale of pay applicable to the lowest grade in the Government: 3. Daily-Wage/Muster Roll Workers, whether skilled or unskilled, who have not completed 10 years of service with a minimum of 240 days in a Calendar year on December 31,1993, shall be paid daily wages at the rates prescribed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time for daily-wage employees falling in Class-III and Class-IV till they are appointed as work-charged employees in accordance with paragraph 2; 4. Daily-Wage/Muster Roll Workers shall be regularized in a phased manner on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability including physical fitness. On regularization they shall be put in the minimum of the time scale payable to the corresponding lowest grade applicable to the Government and would be entitled to all other benefits available to regular Government servants of the corresponding grade." 14. In pursuance of the above judgment of the Honble Apex Court, the State Himachal Pradesh has framed time to time challenged the terms and conditions for regularization of daily waged employees which are more beneficial. These instructions are equally applicable to the respondents corporation. The State Government has issued instructions vide notification No. Per (AP)-C-B(2)- 2/97-Vol.II dated 23.9.98 whereby the termination of service of daily waged workers has been reduced from 10 years to 9 years looking to the facts and the circumstances of the case entitity and the settled legal position and the fact that the applicant was initially engaged on 10.6.1989 thus she has completed 9 years of service in the year 1998 by counting the intervening period towards her seniority. However, the applicant will not be eligible for wages during the intervening period when she has not worked in view of the theory no work no pay. The respondents are further directed to count the intervening period of her seniority and regularize the applicant accordingly. The present original application is disposed of with no orders as to cost. However, these directions will be complied with within a period of three months. 15. The respondents are further directed to count the intervening period of her seniority and regularize the applicant accordingly. The present original application is disposed of with no orders as to cost. However, these directions will be complied with within a period of three months. 15. The original application is finally disposed of in view of the above observations and directions. -