JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition is filed on the following substantive prayers vide para 7(i) and (ii):- “(i) That the impugned order dated 9.2.2007 (A-7), impugned final seniority list(A-1) and impugned rejection order dated 2.1.2007(A-6) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to redraw the seniority of class-iv and fix the applicant at appropriate place and consider him for promotion from the date when the respondent No. 3 & 4 were promoted with all the consequential benefits.” The averments in support of the above reliefs have been set up vide para 6(i) and (iii) of the petition, which are to the following effect:- “(i) That the applicant initially joined the services of the respondents as daily wage beldar w.e.f. 8.11.1989 and since then the applicant was serving as such on daily wage basis with the respondents till his services were made as work charged. (iii) That thereafter the respondents issued the final seniority list of work charged beldars on 27.9.2006, the copy of this impugned seniority list is annexed as Annexure A-1, where the name of the applicant has been wrongly reflected at serial number 36 and the names of respondents 3 to 5 has been reflected at serial numbers 30, 32 and 34 respectively. Therefore all the respondents has been assigned seniority above the applicant, ignoring the fact that the applicant had joined as work charge beldar prior to these the respondents number 3 to 5. For the sake of clarification, it is submitted that the applicant joined as work charge beldar on 29.2.2000, where as the respondents joined as such on 3.3.2000, 10.3.2000 and 1.3.2000, respectively. Apart from these respondents, there are other beldars, who had been shown senior to the applicant. But since some of them are not matriculate or had attained the age of superannuation as such the applicant is not affected by their seniority position.” 2. In their reply, respondents No. 1 and 2 have taken the following stand vide para 6(iii):- “(iii) That the contents of para (iii) of para 6 are admitted to the extent that the replying respondent has drawn seniority list Annexure A-1. Rest of the contents of this para are wrong and denied. As already submitted that seniority list of work charged balder has been drawn as per the instructions of the Govt. Rest of the contents of this para are wrong and denied. As already submitted that seniority list of work charged balder has been drawn as per the instructions of the Govt. issued on 11.12.1997 vide which it has clearly been mentioned at condition No. ix that seniority list of the daily waged/contingent paid workers on their regularization shall be determined from the date of their initially engagement on daily waged basis and further clarified therein that if the date of joining the post on daily wages/contingent basis was the same then the elder employees shall rank senior to an employee younger in age a copy of the relevant notification issued by the Government dated 11.12.1997 is submitted as Annexure R-1 for the perusal of the Hon’ble Tribunal. Therefore the seniority of the work charged beldar has been made strictly as per instructions of the Govt. issued from time to time. It is submitted that the respondent No. 3 to 5 were engaged on daily wage basis prior to the applicant as shown in the seniority list Annexure-A1. Therefore the contention of the applicant are wrong that being a elder in age the applicant should have been shown senior to the respondent No. 3 to 5.” 3. There is no appearance on behalf of respondents No. 3 to 5 despite service. 4. A rejoinder refuting the stand taken by respondents No. 1 and 2 has been filed. 5. Before proceeding further, some undisputed facts may be noticed. As per final seniority list circulated vide letter dated 27.9.2006, Annexure A-1, the petitioner who figures at Sr. No. 36 is shown to have been engaged on daily wages on 8.11.1989. It is apparent from the same document that private respondent No. 3, Sh.Kailash Chand was engaged as daily wager on 1.11.1988, 4, Sh.Vijay Kumar on 3.1.1989 and 5, Sh. Pushp Raj in October, 1985. Thus it is manifest that as daily wagers, private respondents No. 3 to 5 were engaged prior in point of time vis-à-vis the petitioner, who had jointed as such later on. However, the fact remains that work charged status was bestowed upon the petitioner on 29.2.2000, that is, prior to private respondents No. 3 to 5 who were granted such status only thereafter on 4.3.2000, 3.3.2000 and 1.3.2000, respectively. 6. However, the fact remains that work charged status was bestowed upon the petitioner on 29.2.2000, that is, prior to private respondents No. 3 to 5 who were granted such status only thereafter on 4.3.2000, 3.3.2000 and 1.3.2000, respectively. 6. Now the question arises as to what is the criteria for regularization of the services of work charged hands, whether their seniority as such is to be taken into consideration for such regularization or their initial seniority on daily wages has to be reckoned for that purpose. In that regard whereas the petitioner is relying upon clause 11(b) of ‘Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Clerk in HIMUDA-Amendment thereof’ (in short ‘R&P Rules’), Annexure A-5, which was holding the field at the relevant time and reads as under:- Existing provision Proposed provision “11(b) 10% by promotion from amongst work charged staff who are matriculate and possess five years service in the grade. For the purpose of promotion combined seniority of eligible work charged employees on the basis of length of service without disturbing their cadre wise inter-se seniority shall be prescribed. “11(b) 10% by promotion from amongst work charged staff who are matriculate and possess five years service in the grade. For the purpose of promotion, combined seniority of eligible “un-skilled” work charged employees on the basis of length of service without disturbing their cadre wise inter-se-seniority shall be prescribed.” 7. Per contra, reliance is placed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 on ‘Regularisation of Daily Waged Workers in the Departments (other than Public Works and Irrigation & Public Health Departments)/Boards/Corporations/Universities, etc.-Instructions thereof’ issued vide letter dated 11th December, 1997, Annexure R-1, wherein it is provided as under vide instruction (ix):- “(ix) The Seniority of the “Daily Waged/Contingent Paid Workers” as are regularised under this policy vis-à-vis employees appointed on regular basis shall be determined on the date of issue of these policy instructions. The inter-se-seniority of such “Daily Waged/Contingent Paid Workers” shall be determined in accordance with the date of joining the post on daily waged/contingent paid basis. If the date of joining the post(s), on daily wages/contingent basis by such Daily Waged/Contingent Paid Worker was the same, then the elder employees shall rank senior to an employee younger in age. The inter-se-seniority of such “Daily Waged/Contingent Paid Workers” shall be determined in accordance with the date of joining the post on daily waged/contingent paid basis. If the date of joining the post(s), on daily wages/contingent basis by such Daily Waged/Contingent Paid Worker was the same, then the elder employees shall rank senior to an employee younger in age. If the date of joining of the direct recruit and date of regularisation of Daily Waged/Contingent Paid Worker is the same the direct recruit shall rank senior.” 8. Against the foregoing background the limited controversy between the parties is as to whether R&P Rules, Annexure A-5 or instructions, Annexure R-1 would apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The answer, to my mind, is definitely that it is the R&P Rules, Annexure A-5, which would be applicable for determination of the present controversy. The reasons in this regard are elaborated hereinafter. 9. True it is that private respondents No. 3 to 5 had joined the respondent-authority as daily wagers earlier to the petitioner. However, the fact that it was the petitioner who was granted work charged status earlier to private respondents No. 3 to 5 can also not lost sight of. Indisputably a work charged hand stands on a better footing than a daily wager. There can be no dispute that for regularization of daily wagers, instructions, Annexure R-1, would be applicable. However, it is equally true that R&P Rules, Annexure A-5 apply to the regularization of work charged employees, which certainly stand on a better footing vis-à-vis Annexure R-1, which are merely instructions. When admittedly the petitioner was senior as a work charged hand in relation to private respondents No. 3 to 5, his claim for promotion against 10% quota in terms of clause 11(b) of R&P Rules, Annexure A-5 could not have been overlooked vis-à-vis private respondents No. 3 to 5, only on the ground that they had joined the establishment as daily wagers before the petitioner. 10. In this view of the matter, the impugned order of promotion dated 9.2.2007, Annexure A-7, final seniority list Annexure A-1 and rejection order dated 2.1.2007, Annexure A-6 cannot be sustained and are accordingly quashed and set aside. 10. In this view of the matter, the impugned order of promotion dated 9.2.2007, Annexure A-7, final seniority list Annexure A-1 and rejection order dated 2.1.2007, Annexure A-6 cannot be sustained and are accordingly quashed and set aside. Consequently, there shall be a direction to respondents No. 1 and 2/competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of clerk against 10% quota in terms of clause 11(b) of the R&P Rules, Annexure A-5 along with consequential benefits, if any, from the due date, that is, 9.2.2007 when private respondents No. 3 and 4, Sh.Kailash Chand and Sh. Vijay Kumar were promoted as clerks vide office order of even date, Annexure A-7, within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner before respondents No. 1 and 2/competent authority. Private respondent No. 5, Sh. Pushp Raj has also since been promoted as clerk vide office order dated 21.1.2010, Annexure A, which fact has been brought on record by the petitioner by way of CMP(T) No. 36 of 2010 and such promotion has been made subject to the outcome of the writ petition vide order dated 13.5.2010. As a natural corollary, on promotion to the post of clerk, the petitioner shall rank senior to private respondents No. 3 to 5. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.