Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 146 (HP)

Rup Lal v. State of H. P.

2012-03-30

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2012
JUDGEMENT Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge (Oral) This writ petition was initially filed before the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal and on its abolition, transferred to this Court for disposal in accordance with law. The reliefs claimed in this petition are as under: “I That the respondents may kindly be directed to issue Work charge/ regularization order as Beldar in favour of applicants retrospectively w.e.f. 1st April, 2001 or on subsequent date/ from the date of creation of posts with its consequential benefits. IIThat respondent No. 2 Executive Engineer HP PWD B&R Mandi Divn. No. II may also kindly be directed to issue seniority list of daily rated Beldars/ workers working under his Division and get the posts created for his Division as per policy for eligible workers.” 2. Petitioners have approached this Court by filing this petition for direction to the respondents to appoint them as beldars as work charge employees/ on regular basis, on the ground that they have completed eight years of continuous service on daily wage basis as Beldars as on 31.3.2001. It has also been claimed that the services of the persons similarly situated to them have since been regularized. However, they have been discriminated against in this behalf. 3. Respondents have filed the reply and contested the claim of the petitioners. In preliminary submissions, it is submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya v. State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316, services of several daily wage workers have been regularized, on completion of ten years or more continuous service, strictly in accordance with their seniority and subject to availability of posts. The services of the petitioners could not be regularized for want of sufficient number of sanctioned posts. However, no person junior to them has been regularized. The Policies, in the matter of regularization of the workers, like petitioners, Annexures R-1 and R-2, have also been brought on record. Reliance has also been placed on a judgment dated April 9, 2003, Annexure R-3 of this Court in State of H.P. v. Dhian Singh Alias Mohindru & Another, CWP No. 481 of 1995 and also instructions Annexures R-4 and R-5 issued by the State Government in the matter of regularization of the services of the workers, similarly situated to the petitioners. The Mandays Charts in respect of the petitioners have also been annexed to the reply as Annexure R-10. 4. I have heard Shri Tek Chand Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioners and Shri J.K.Verma, learned Deputy Advocate General, on behalf of the respondents and also gone through the record. 5. Although, the petitioners have sought a direction to the respondents to appoint them as work charge employees/ on regular basis, yet during the course of arguments, learned counsel representing them, has restricted their claim to the extent of their appointment as work charge employees, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case cited (supra). Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure R-10, the Mandays Chart, which contains the factual position qua the services they rendered on daily wage basis with the respondents. 6. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment cited (supra) a workman, who has completed ten years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.12.1993, is required to be appointed as work charge employee, w.e.f. 1.1.1994 in the lowest grade of the time scale of pay, applicable to the corresponding category(s) of such workmen in the Government Departments. Those having not completed ten years continuous service, with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year as on 31.12.1993 are to be appointed as work charge employees w.e.f. the date they complete the said period of ten years of service in the lowest grade of the time scale applicable to the corresponding category(s) of such workers in the government departments. Further such daily wage/ muster roll workers are required to be regularized in a phased manner, on the basis of seniority-cum- suitability including physical fitness and to be placed in the minimum of the time scale, applicable to their counter parts in the government departments, alongwith all other benefits available to regular government servants of such corresponding grade. 7. If the factual position, reflected in Annexure R-10, is seen, they all had completed ten years continuous service with 240 days in a calendar year on daily wage basis as beldars in 2002. 7. If the factual position, reflected in Annexure R-10, is seen, they all had completed ten years continuous service with 240 days in a calendar year on daily wage basis as beldars in 2002. Therefore, in the light of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case, cited (supra) they were required to be regularized as work charge Beldars in the year 2002, i.e. immediately after the completion of ten years continuous service and should have been placed in the lowest grade of the time scale, applicable to the corresponding category of workers in government departments. 8. In reply to the petition, nothing to this effect find mention. Meaning thereby, that respondents had not considered the petitioners for appointment as work charge beldars in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The plea, that the petitioners could not be regularized for want of sufficient number of posts of Beldars on regular basis and also because of the fact that they were down below in the seniority list of daily wage workers, is not plausible and rather unreasonable, because it was a case of workmen who were to be considered for appointment as work charge employees. The question of availability of posts and suitability of a worker is required to be taken into consideration at the time of regularization of services of such worker, and not at the time of assigning work charge status to him. Therefore, when the petitioners, as per own case of the respondents, had completed ten years continuous service on daily wage basis as Beldar in the year 2002, they should have been brought on work charge establishment at that time itself. 9. In view of what is stated hereinabove, this writ petition succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents to bring all the petitioners on work charge establishment, w.e.f. the date(s) they had completed ten years continuous service, with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on daily wage basis, with all consequential benefits. Thereafter, their cases be also considered for appointment as Beldars on regular basis, no doubt, subject to availability of posts and their suitability-cum-fitness. 10. With the above directions, this petition stands finally disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. There shall be no order as to costs.