JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Petitioners have approached this Court, invoking Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking direction to respondents to regularize their services on completion of 7 years of daily waged services with claim that they were engaged by respondents in the year 2009 and have completed 7 years service in the year 2016 and as per Instructions dated 28th June, 2014 issued in the matter regarding the Policy of Regularization of daily-wage workers/contingent paid workers, Government had decided that daily-wage workers/contingent paid workers in all Departments, who had completed 7 years continue service with requisite minimum days in a calender year as on 31st March, 2014, be regularized against vacant posts of respective departments. 2. In response to the petition, claim of petitioners has been opposed on the ground that they were initially engaged as temporary/imported daily wages Beldars in July, 2010 through Contractor and they had not completed minimum 160 days as required in tribal area during a year and from January 2011 they are regularly working as temporary/imported daily wages Beldars in H.P. PWD Sub Division Keylong. However, petitioner Kamal Dass, had, in the year 2013, worked only for 135 days and thus had not completed minimum 160 days in the said year. After January, 2014, he is regularly working as daily wages Beldar, whereas petitioner No.2 had worked more than 160 days in each calender year, since her initial appointment. Respondents have also placed on record their Mandays Charts as Annexure R-1 and Annexure R-2 to substantiate and demonstrate the claim of petitioners with respect to days for which petitioners had worked with the Department. 3. Apart from plea that petitioners were engaged through Contractor and in case of Kamal, there was shortfall of minimum days in the year 2013, another objection has been raised that petitioners are Nepali citizens and thus are not entitled to be appointed in the respondents-Department. 4. After filing of petition in the year 2017, petitioners were being continued by the respondents Department, however, in the month of June, 2023 they were dis-engaged whereupon an application CMP-T No. 671 of 2023 was preferred by petitioners seeking direction for their reinstatement and also to treat them like similarly situated person Dolma, whose services were also terminated by the respondents but on filing the contempt petition her services were brought on work charge establishment from due date. 5. 5. In response to aforesaid application, respondents have placed on record the copies of notices inviting tenders to provide labour, issued by the Executive Engineer Chenab Valley Division, since the working season 2012-13 to 2022-2023 along with supply order issued to Chhering Angchuk and Dorje Upasak, stated to be Government Contractors, for supply of labour on commission basis in different places in Chenab Valley Division. Along with these applications, details of workers supplied by aforesaid Contractors in different areas have also been placed on record. 6. In response to aforesaid information, placed on record with reply to application filed by respondents, it has been contended by learned counsel for petitioners that Dolma, who has brought on work charge status is also in aforesaid list, details of employees along with petitioners namely Kamal Dass and Moti Devi. 7. In reply, tone and tenor of respondents/State is that petitioners have not completed requisite daily waged service continuously for the requisite years and being Nepali citizens, they are not entitled for job in the Department, in view of Amendment carried out in R&P Rules on 3.7.2004 whereby it has been provided that person to be appointed in the Department shall be citizen of India. 8. Though in reply, it was claimed that petitioners were engaged through Contractor but nothing was brought on record with reply. Information placed on record along with reply to application, referred supra, is also of no help to the respondents on this count because neither any affidavit or details of Contractors except names and addresses, has been placed on record and there is no details of requisite registration of establishment i.e. the Department hiring the labour through Contractor as required under The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short ‘the Act’). It is also noticeable that as required under Section 7 of the Act, no details of registration have been placed on record. License of Contractor, as provided in Chapter 4 of the Act has also not been placed on record. Rather Office Order dated 6th October, 2023 conferring the work charge status on Dolma has also been placed on record with reply to the application who has also been shown to be a labourer provided through Contractor. 9. License of Contractor, as provided in Chapter 4 of the Act has also not been placed on record. Rather Office Order dated 6th October, 2023 conferring the work charge status on Dolma has also been placed on record with reply to the application who has also been shown to be a labourer provided through Contractor. 9. It has also been informed to Court that aforesaid Dolma had filed CWP No. 6240 of 2022 titled as Dolma vs. State of HP, which was allowed along with LPA No. 165 of 2021 whereby she was directed to be granted work charge status/regularization on completion of 8 years daily waged service. 10. As a matter of fact, the aforesaid Dolma, as referred in Office Order dated 6th October, 2023, was granted work charge status with retrospective effect from 1.1.2019 on completion of 8 years service as on 31.12.2018, but subject to final outcome of SLP filed before the Apex Court. Office order dated 6.10.2023 has been issued in supersession of earlier order dated 13.7.2023 which reads as under:- “Whereas Contempt Petition No.115/2023 titled as Dolma Vs. Sh.Subhashish Panda and Ors was listed before the Hon’ble Court on 13.07.2023. The new facts came to the notice of respondent No.1 w.e.t. engagement of petitioner. However, without contesting these facts in these proceedings, the petitioner is granted work charge status as per the judgment passed in CWP No.6240/2022 which was decided with LPA No. 165/2021. This order is without admission of the facts of engagement of the petitioner and subject to final outcome of Review Petition/SLP or any other legal remedies available to the State. Sd/- Engineer-in-Chief HPPWD, Shimla” 11. Petitioners were engaged to carry out the work by the respondents Department in most difficult terrain of the State in extremely adverse circumstances and worst weather and they provided their services for welfare of public of State during best part of their life. Sometimes, temperature in the area concern dips to minus twenty (-20 C). 12 It is strange but unexpected and deprecable behaviour and conduct on the part of Department/State that for doing difficult hard work they need and require hard working Nepalis but with bar to extend benefit of their service to them. To deny equitable and just right and claim of Nepali Labourer, R&P Rules have been referred. But everyone knows that Nepalis are best and efficient workers to do hard job. To deny equitable and just right and claim of Nepali Labourer, R&P Rules have been referred. But everyone knows that Nepalis are best and efficient workers to do hard job. Nepali citizens come to Bharat under compulsion due to poverty and lack of resources and employment, and taking undue advantage of their compulsion, State is exploiting them by squeezing their youth and throwing them in dustbin when they need protection and security of job. Such exploitative conduct on the part of Bharat especially Himachal Pradesh is not warranted. 13 In order to defeat right and claim of petitioners, respondents have adopted modus operandi to show hiring labour through contractors but in the facts and circumstances have failed to establish the same. 14 Despite having right to get the benefit of their continue service, as evident from Mandays Chart, placed by respondents on record, the same has been denied by respondents arbitrarily and, therefore, petitioners are entitled for the relief claimed like similarly situated person Dolma, referred supra, who has also been shown as Nepali citizen in the details of workers placed on record by respondents. 15 From the Mandays Chart, it is apparent that n the year 2010 Kamal Dass worked for 157 days and thereafter except the year 2013 when petitioner Kamal Dass has been reflected to have worked for 135 days only, he continuously worked for more than 160 days and in some years for more than 300 days continuously. Petitioner No.2 is his wife. She has also been shown working continuously for more than minimum requisite 160 days except 142 days in the year 2010. 16. In the year 2013, petitioner No.2 who is wife of petitioner No.1 has worked for 268 days. There was no occasion for the petitioner No.1 to remain absent during that period. It appears that to give a fictional break, petitioners were not allowed to complete minimum requisite days in the years 2010 and 2013. Issue related to fictional break given by the Department is squarely covered by judgment dated 30th August, 2017 passed in LPA No. 645 of 2011 titled as State of HP vs. Keshav Ram. It appears that to give a fictional break, petitioners were not allowed to complete minimum requisite days in the years 2010 and 2013. Issue related to fictional break given by the Department is squarely covered by judgment dated 30th August, 2017 passed in LPA No. 645 of 2011 titled as State of HP vs. Keshav Ram. In the light of this judgment, shortfall of few days in the year 2010 with respect to both petitioners and 2013 with respect to petitioner Kamal Dass deserves to be condoned and, accordingly, it is directed to be condoned and petitioners are declared to have completed minimum requisite period of daily waged service during these years. 17. Admittedly, similarly situated person Dolma, by allowing CWP No. 6240 of 2022 by the Division Bench has been directed to be granted work charge status/regularization on completion of 8 years and respondents, in fact, have conferred work charge status upon her on completion of 8 years daily waged service. Therefore, petitioners are also entitled for same treatment in identical circumstances. 18. In view of above, I am of considered opinion that petitioners are also entitled for similar treatment as has been extended to Dolma and, therefore, respondents are directed to confer the work charge status/regularization to petitioners on completion of their 8 years service in the year 2018 w.e.f. 1.1.2019 like Dolma. 19. Respondents are also directed to re-engage the petitioners with immediate effect and extend the benefits of regularization/work charge status upon them by issuing appropriate order on or before 31st January, 2024. The break in service on termination during pendency of petition shall be condoned and period of absence shall be taken into consideration for all intends and purposes including continuity and seniority except back wages from the date of termination till 31st January, 2024. The necessary order for re-engagement shall be issued by respondents on or before 31st January, 2024 and in case of failure to do so, the petitioners shall also be entitled for wages w.e.f. 1st February, 2024 till their re-engagement. Petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly including all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.