JUDGEMENT Narinder Thakur, Vice Chairman. Briefly the case of the applicant is that he passed his matriculation in second division in 1981 and completed two years Draftsman course from in, Talwara in 1983. He worked as Apprentice in the BBMB Nangal for one year from September, 1985. 2. On 1.1.1986 the applicant was appointed verbally as Supervisor on daily wages on muster roll basis at first instance upto July, 1986. After this he was given work as Beldar on muster roll upto March 1987 but the work assigned to the applicant was of draftsman. In March 1987 he was given muster roll of Tracer draftsman till December, 1987. In January 1988 he was given muster roll of Supervisor/motor mate upto August 1988 @ Rs. 37/- per day. From September, 1988 to September 1989 he was given muster roll of a beldar and from October 1989, he was given muster roll of a supervisor upto June, 1990. In July, August, 1990 the respondents gave muster roll of beldar @ Rs. 22/- per day. In September, 1990 the applicant was given muster roll of helper @ Rs. 29/- per day. 3. The applicant in proof of his working as draftsman and preparing estimates in the office more than to the tune of Rs. 1,50.000/- has annexed Annexures PA & PB and a certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer as PC. 4. The applicant further alleges that the applicant since his initial engagement on 1 1.1986 has been discharging the duties of draftsman and is being exploited whereas persons junior to him and engaged as beldars are now working as supervisors. 5. In above factual backdrop the applicant is claiming the relief of giving him the pay of draftsman and allow the applicant to continue as draftsman against the proper grade and direct the respondent to treat the applicant as regular employee and not on daily rated list and the applicant be absorbed as a draftsman against a regular post. 6. The reply has been filed by the respondent department wherein it has been averred in preliminary submissions that the CXA. is not maintainable as no legal and equity rights of the applicant have been infringed in any manner. No cause of action has accrued in his favour. 6. The reply has been filed by the respondent department wherein it has been averred in preliminary submissions that the CXA. is not maintainable as no legal and equity rights of the applicant have been infringed in any manner. No cause of action has accrued in his favour. The cause of action is stated to have accrued in February, 1988 whereas the present application is being filed during 20.11.1992 and the application is time barred. Year wise break up (Annexure RA) of the actual working days annexed with the reply belies the claim of the applicant The appointment to the post of a tracer draftsman in the respondent department is made through the Public Service Commission, through a selection test The applicant has been given work as per availability of work in the department and as also accepted by the applicant without any reservation. That this Tribunal may not exercise jurisdiction matter being covered under Industrial Disputes Act. 7. On merits the respondents have stated that the applicant is not working as draftsman, but was working as helper as per the muster roll. The applicant never informed the department respondent No.3 at the time of his engagement during 12.1.1986 on daily wages that he was qualified draftsman. It is stated that the employment of daily wages worker depends upon the need of the department for the particular work and according to availability of funds. Accordingly, after July, 1986, the applicant was engaged as beldar motor/mate helper and tracer on other works where the work was available with department during that particular month/year, instead of terminating his services and he got his wages accordingly. The applicant has never shown his resentment to the controlling officer in charge in this regard. As regards appointment of tracer- draftsman, it is submitted that the applicant was not appointed by the Public Works Department as Tracer draftsman but he was engaged as such on muster roll by the Assistant Engineer for some period i.e. 4/87 to 6/87 and 8/87 to 12/87 and the work is taken from them through Junior Engineer. Accordingly, the applicant also worked in various capacities, necessitated by various works. The applicant has not worked continuously for 240 days on one work. Accordingly, the applicant also worked in various capacities, necessitated by various works. The applicant has not worked continuously for 240 days on one work. As regards issuance of certificate the same has been issued by the Assistant Engineer on the basis of record of his office and as per work already done by him as he represented to him that he was attending some interview in connection with his appointment It is stated that the applicant at no stage worked as a draftsman though he was engaged on muster roll basis as a tracer-draftsman for a limited period . 8. The rejoinder was filed denying the averments made in preliminary objections and contrary stand taken in the reply on merit It is stated that the Annexure RA does not disclose true facts. To belie this, the applicant has annexed certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer as Annexure PF. It is also stated that there were other four tracer draftsman who were also appointed as tracer-draftsman on daily wages but actually they were working as draftsman in the drawing branch. 9. Faced with rival contention, this Tribunal directed to place on record more details to clear the picture in pursuance to directions of this Tribunal, the applicant with the assistance of the person from the respondent department furnished more details through an MA No. 3429/2001 which were taken on record along with documents filed with the reply and rejoinder to this miscellaneous application No. 1213/2003. 10. The arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Deputy Advocate General were heard and the pleadings and record perused carefully. 11. The controversy in the present case is covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in OA No. 1607/2000 Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State of H.P. wherein this Tribunal relying on the judgment of Honble High Court has allowed the said original application. Admittedly, the initial engagement of the applicant was on the post of supervisor w.e.f. 1.11.1986 and he was issued muster roll up till July, 1986. The applicant is possessing the qualification of two years diploma for the post of draftsman. Annexure RA placed on record by the respondent department (toes not depict clear picture and the same is belied by the Annexure A and the record placed with MAs. The applicant is possessing the qualification of two years diploma for the post of draftsman. Annexure RA placed on record by the respondent department (toes not depict clear picture and the same is belied by the Annexure A and the record placed with MAs. No record has been placed on record by the respondents evidencing their contention that the applicant having worked as beldar or helper. The stand taken by the respondents that the applicant has worked only for those days as shown in the record as tracer -draftsman and for remaining days he has worked as beldar or helper is not trustable. This Tribunal on 12.1.1993 passed an order in Cont Pet No. 1/93 that" in the meanwhile the respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to work and perform the duties of draftsman." Ever since, the applicant has been discharging the duties as draftsman as per the reply to the contempt petition. But the record placed by the respondent in O.A. show that the applicant has worked for 70 days as tracer- draftsman in the year 1993, 80 days in the year 1994 and 71 days in the year 1995 after passing of the interim order by this Tribunal which as per the reply has been complied with fully. Thus, the record placed by the respondents does not depict full and clear picture, whereas in compliance to interim order of this Tribunal dated 12.1.1993 the applicant should have been shown to have worked as draftsman for full tenure. As such, the stand of the respondents is not supported by documentary proof and is betted. The action of the respondents amounts of exploitation of an educated youth. 12. The Honble Apex Court in 1990 (1) SCC 361 titled as Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral development Corporation has even held that the daily wagers who did not possess the minimum educational qualification were held entitled to be regularized as they have gained sufficient experience on the job. In the present case, the applicant is fully qualified to hold the post of a tracer-draftsman draftsman. The observations of the Honble Apex court in para 6 of the judgments are as under"- "6." The main controversy centers round the question whether some petitioners are possessed of the requisite qualifications to hold the posts so as to entitle them to be confirmed in the respective posts held by them. The observations of the Honble Apex court in para 6 of the judgments are as under"- "6." The main controversy centers round the question whether some petitioners are possessed of the requisite qualifications to hold the posts so as to entitle them to be confirmed in the respective posts held by them. The indisputable facts are that the petitioners were appointed between the period 1983 and 1986 and ever since, they have been working and have gained sufficient experience in the actual discharge of duties attached to the posts held by them. Practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and is a sure guide to assess the suitability. The initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the different posts is undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with, but it is so at the time of the initial entry into the service. Once the appointments were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time. It would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications. In our view three years experience, ignoring artificial break in service for short period/periods created by the respondent in the circumstances, would be sufficient for confirmation. If there is a gap of more than three months between the period of termination and re-appointment that period may be excluded in the computation of the three years period. Since the petitioners before us satisfy the requirement of three years service as calculated above, we direct that 40 of the senior-most workmen should be regularized with immediate effect and the remaining 118 petitioners should be regularized in a phased manner before April 1, 1991 and promoted to the next higher post according to the standing orders. All the petitioners are entitled to equal pay at par with the persons appointed on regular basis to the similar post or discharge similar duties, and are entitled to the scale of pay and all allowances revised from time to time for the said posts. We further direct that 16 of the petitioners who are ousted form the service pending the writ petition should be reinstated immediately Suitable promotional avenues should be created and the respondent should consider the eligible candidates for being promoted to such posts. We further direct that 16 of the petitioners who are ousted form the service pending the writ petition should be reinstated immediately Suitable promotional avenues should be created and the respondent should consider the eligible candidates for being promoted to such posts. The respondent is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000 in the Registry of this Court within four weeks to meet the remuneration of the Industrial Tribunal. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed, but without costs.’ 13. The Honble Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh reported in 1992 (4) SCC 118 has held that where a temporary or ad-hoc appointment is continued for long-the court presumes that there is need and warrant for a regular post and accordingly directs regularization White all the situations in which the court may act to ensure fairness cannot be detailed, it is sufficient to indicate that the guiding principles are the ones indicated above. Undoubtedly the applicant has been working since 1.1.1986 with his initial appointment as a supervisor which fact is not denied. Thereafter, the respondents with a view to deprive him the benefit of regularization on the same or analogous post have been issuing the matter rolls different categories, but have been taking the same work from him as is evident from the record. Even from the period the applicant has been paid wages on muster roll as beldar or helper, as per record he has worked as tracer draftsman/ draftsman. The continuous employment of the applicant for the purpose of tracer draftsman/draftsman leave no manner of doubt in our mind that there was a need for employment of one such person and the act of the respondents is nothing but an act of exploitation of an unemployed youth, who had no option except to accept the lower wages or else loose his Job. 14. Though the applicant has prayed for treating himself as regular draftsman from his initial date, but the same request of the applicant cannot be conceded to. However, A is directed to the respondents, to regularize the applicant as draftsman on completion of Ms 10 years service w.e.f. 1.1.986 with all the consequential benefits The applicant shall also be entitled to daily wages of draftsman/tracer draftsman for entire period, prior to his regularization. interest will also be payable (a) @ 9% pa on me arrears 15. However, A is directed to the respondents, to regularize the applicant as draftsman on completion of Ms 10 years service w.e.f. 1.1.986 with all the consequential benefits The applicant shall also be entitled to daily wages of draftsman/tracer draftsman for entire period, prior to his regularization. interest will also be payable (a) @ 9% pa on me arrears 15. The above original application is disposed of with the above observations- These orders will be complied with within two months from the date of receipt of Ms order No order as to costs.-