Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 513 (HP)

PHOOL MAYA v. STATE OF H. P.

2010-03-17

KULDIP SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J.(Oral)-The petitioner in the petition has prayed for work charge status as Beldar w.e.f. 1.1.2000 with all consequential benefits. The further case of the petitioner is that she was engaged as Beldar under the H.P.P.W.D. Division, Jubbal w.e.f. 1.2.1990 and was due for work charge status as Beldar w.e.f. 1.1.2000 in light of Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not given her work charge status despite the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. 2. The respondents No.1 to 4 have filed reply that the petitioner is a Nepali and Foreign National. The Recruitment and Promotion Rules for work-charge establishment notified on 5.5.1995 do not permit the work charge status to petitioner. Rule 14 of the aforesaid Rules has been modified on 11.7.2000. In brief, the learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that in view of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of work-charge Beldar in the Department of Public Works Department, Himachal Pradesh (for short ‘Rules’), Annexure R-1 the petitioner is not entitled to work-charge status even if she has completed 10 years of continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year. The respondents in their reply have not disputed the engagement of the petitioner on daily wages since February 1990. There is no specific stand of the respondents that petitioner has not completed 10 years of continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year. 3. Rule 2 provides that there are 7865 sanctioned posts of work charged Beldars, method of recruitment is given in Rule 10. The first part of Rule 10 is to the effect that 100% by appointment failing which by direct recruitment. In Rule 10, it has not been made clear that 100% by appointment are to be made from which category. The second part of Rule 10 indicates that remaining appointments are to be made by direct recruitment. The Rule 11 provides that 100% appointments are to be made from amongst the daily waged Beldars who have completed 10 years of continuous service as such with minimum of 240 days in each calendar year. This clears the mist regarding the expression 100% by appointment provided in Rule 10. The Rule 11 provides that 100% appointments are to be made from amongst the daily waged Beldars who have completed 10 years of continuous service as such with minimum of 240 days in each calendar year. This clears the mist regarding the expression 100% by appointment provided in Rule 10. In other words, the method of recruitment for 100% by appointment is nothing else but from daily waged Beldars who have completed 10 years of continuous service as such with minimum of 240 days in each calendar year. The learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that Rule 14, provides eligibility. The bare perusal of Rule 14 indicates that Rule 14 is applicable only to direct recruitment, a second category under Rule 10 and not to the first category under Rule 10 100% by appointment, who are none else but daily waged Beldars, a different category other than direct recruitment. 4. The letter dated 11.7.2000 provides for amendment of Rule 14 of existing standard proforma of Recruitment and Promotion Rules (Essential requirement for direct recruitment). The letter dated 11.7.2000 does not affect the case of petitioner for more than one reason. There is nothing on record to show that in pursuance of letter dated 11.7.2000, Annexure R-1 Rules were amended and new Rule 14 was incorporated . The new Rule is meant for direct recruitment whereas case of petitioner is of appointment under first part of Rule 10 which is different from direct recruitment. In addition, petitioner has attained eligibility for work charge status on 1.2.2000 much before amendment was proposed on 11.7.2000 in the existing standard proforma of Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Therefore, letter dated 11.7.2000 does not affect the claim of petitioner for work charge status on completion of 10 years continuous service with 240 days in each year w.e.f. 1.2.1990. 5. The petitioner has completed 10 years of continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year as daily wage Beldar, her case is squarely covered by the judgment of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra). According to Mool Raj’s case the Beldars, who have completed 10 years of service upto 31.12.1993 shall get work-charge status w.e.f. 1.1.1994 and the Beldars, who will complete 10 years after 31.12.1993 shall get the work charge status on completion of 10 years. According to Mool Raj’s case the Beldars, who have completed 10 years of service upto 31.12.1993 shall get work-charge status w.e.f. 1.1.1994 and the Beldars, who will complete 10 years after 31.12.1993 shall get the work charge status on completion of 10 years. In the present case, since the respondents have not denied the fact that the petitioner has completed 10 years of continuous service with minimum of 240 days in each calendar year starting from 1.2.1990, therefore, on completion of 10 years w.e.f. 1.2.1990, the petitioner is entitled to work-charge status as per Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra). In these circumstances, the petition deserves to be allowed. 6. No other point was urged. 7. The result of the above discussion, the petition is allowed. The respondent No.3 is directed to give work-charge status to petitioner strictly in accordance with Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra) with all consequential benefits and such decision be taken within a period of six weeks from today.