Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 82 (HP)

Kamla Devi v. State of H. P.

2021-02-24

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2021
JUDGMENT : AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:- The petitioner was engaged as a Beldar on daily wage basis with effect from October, 1998, by respondent No.2. The musterrol demonstrating the number of days, for which the petitioner had worked in each calendar year after her engagement, is appended with the petition as Annexure A-1. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite her being eligible for regularization in terms of the policy of regularization of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which has been duly adopted by respondent No. 2, her services have not been regularized on the pretext that she as was more than 45 years of age and as the age limit for appointment in government service is 45 years, therefore, her services cannot be regularized. In this background, the petitioner has prayed that respondent-department be directed to regularize her services in terms of the policy of the government in vogue and in case she is found entitled for conferment of work charge status before regularization, then said status be also conferred upon her with consequential benefits. 2. The petition is opposed by respondent No. 2 primarily on the ground that the State Government has prescribed age of 45 years for appointment to government service and as the petitioner has already completed the age of 45 years, therefore her services cannot be regularized. There is no other reason mentioned in the reply for nonregularization of services of the petitioner. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings as well as record of the case. 4. It is not in dispute that from time to time the Government of Himachal Pradesh has come up with policies for regularization of daily waged workers. It is also not in dispute that said policies varied from time to time. Though the period which a daily wage worker was to put in with 240 days service in each calendar year, was contemplated as 10 years in earlier policies, said period was thereafter modified/reduced from time to time. It is also not in dispute that said policies varied from time to time. Though the period which a daily wage worker was to put in with 240 days service in each calendar year, was contemplated as 10 years in earlier policies, said period was thereafter modified/reduced from time to time. As it is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged as a daily wage worker by respondent No. 2 in the month of October, 1998 and the policy for regularization of daily wage workers of the State Government is followed by respondent No. 2 for the purpose of regularization of the services of daily wage workers engaged by it, then, in this view of the matter, denial of regularization of services of the petitioner by respondent No. 2 on the ground that she had attained the age of 45 years, is arbitrary and not justifiable in law. It could not be disputed during the course of arguments that daily wage workers in various departments of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, who fulfilled the criteria for regularization of their services, in terms of the policy in vogue at the relevant time, were regularized irrespective of the fact whether they had completed 45 years of age or not. In the considered view of this Court, even otherwise, the maximum age limit of 45 years, as prescribed by the government to join the service, could not have been made a criterion for denying regularization to a daily wage worker, for the reason that unlike a person who seeks appointment from open market/by way of direct recruitment, upon posts being advertised by the government, a daily wage worker has already put in number of precious years of his/her service with the department etc. concerned and it is in lieu of service so rendered that a daily wage worker is regularized, based on the policies which stand formulated from time to time by the government to regularize their services. 5. Accordingly, this petition is allowed by holding that the act of respondent No. 2 of denying regularization of the services of the petitioner on the ground that she had completed the age of 45 years as on the date when she was eligible for regularization in terms of the policy of the State Government to be bad in law. 5. Accordingly, this petition is allowed by holding that the act of respondent No. 2 of denying regularization of the services of the petitioner on the ground that she had completed the age of 45 years as on the date when she was eligible for regularization in terms of the policy of the State Government to be bad in law. Direction is issued to respondent No. 2 to regularize the services of the petitioner as per policy of regularization of the State Government, in terms whereof the petitioner was entitled for regularization after she joined the services of respondent No. 2 on daily wage basis in the month of October, 1998. It is further ordered that in case in terms of the policy of the State Government as well as the judgments passed by this Court, any right of conferment of work charge status accrues upon the petitioner before the date of regularization of her services, then said benefit shall also be given to the petitioner. 6. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. Monetary emoluments, as shall accrue as a result of the implementation of this judgment, shall be granted to the petitioner. It is clarified that in case the judgment is implemented within a period of 90 days from today, then no interest shall be paid on the monetary emoluments to which the petitioner shall be entitled to however, if the judgment is not implemented within the period of 90 days, then the monetary emoluments shall entail interest @ 6% per annum as from the date of filing of the petition.