IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 8259 of 2010 alongwith CWPs No. 8267, 8319, 8486, 8494 of 2010. Date of Decision: 4th July, 2011 CWP No.8259 of 2010 Roop Chand Petitioner Versus HP Khadi & Village Industries and another Respondents CWP No.8267 of 2010 Rajinder Kumar Petitioner Versus HP Khadi & Village Industries Board & another Respondents CWP No.8319 of 2010 Durga Dutt Petitioner Versus HP Khadi & Village Industries Board & another Respondents CWP No. 8486 of 2010 Narinder Sharma and others Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and another Respondents CWP No.8494 of 2010 Vir Chand Petitioner Versus HP Khadi & Village Industries Board & another Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph,C.J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioners: Mr. G.R.Palsra and Shri Hamender Chandel, Advocates. For the respondents:Mr.R.K.Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Ankush D. Sood, Addl. A.G. for respondent-State. Mr. Ritta Goswami, Advocate, for HP Khadi & Village Industries Board. Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) In all these petitions the issue raised is no longer res integra. In fact the Division Bench of this Court in H.P. Khadi & Village Industries Board vs. State of H.P. and another, CWP No.1646 of 2007, in relation to similarly situated persons have held that the employees of the respondents herein became eligible for conferment of work charge status on completion of 10 years of service with 240 working days in each calendar year. In the said case original petitioner was engaged by the Board on daily wage basis in the year 1991. On completion of 10 years of service as a daily waged worker w.e.f. 1.1.2002, he claimed conferment of work charge status as per the scheme framed by the government and adopted by the Board. The same was, however, denied to him and consequently he filed an Original Application before the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal and vide order dated 7.8.2002, the Board was directed to accord work charge status, as claimed by him. Aggrieved thereof, Board filed civil writ petition and after hearing the parties at length, following order was passed by this Court:- “3. Petitioner- Board has filed this writ petition seeking judicial review of the aforesaid order. Grounds raised in the petition are the same as were raised before the learned Tribunal, for opposing his original application. It is stated that the respondent had become overage on the date, he 3 completed ten years service and also he did not possess the requisite educational qualification. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that during the pendency of the present writ petition, an order conferring work charge status or regularization of his services has been passed in favour of the respondent No.2, after obtaining relaxation from the Government. If that is so, the objection that the respondent was ineligible for conferment of work charge status or regularization of services cannot be upheld. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that order for conferment of status of work charge or regularization of service of respondent No.2 has been passed and the order has been made effective from the date of order of relaxation passed in favour of respondent No.2 by the Government. He submits that respondent No.2 could not have been ordered to be conferred the status of work charge by the learned Tribunal on and with effect from the date of his completing 10 years of service in the absence of relaxation and that since the relaxation has been ordered by the Government during the pendency of the writ petition, the order cannot be effective from a date prior to the date of relaxation. 6. We have considered the submission. Relaxation granted by the Government would relate back from the date when, as per the scheme of the Government, as adopted by the petitioner-Board, the petitioner became eligible for the conferment of work charge status, i.e. on completing of 10 years of service with 240 working days in every calendar year. Admittedly, he completed 10 years of service as daily waged worker with 240 working days in every calendar year on 31st December, 2001 and thus become eligible for conferment of work charge status on and w.e.f. 1.1.2002. 7. Also, we do not find from the record indicating that there is any condition regarding maximum age and educational qualification for conferment of work charge status upon a daily waged worker, if he 4 otherwise, fulfills the condition of length of service and number of working days during each calendar year, as per the Scheme. 8. Thus, we find no fault with the order of the learned Tribunal. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.” (Emphasis supplied) 2. Undisputedly not only the judgment in H.P. Khadi & Village Industries Board (supra), has attained finality but the same has been implemented qua other similarly situated employees in relation to whom also similar directions were issued (Annexures P-5 and P-6) by this Court. In fact the Board consented to passing of the orders. 3. In the instant cases, the petitioners also claim to have completed 10 years of continuous and uninterrupted service on daily wage basis from their respective dates of appointments. This fact is not disputed by the respondent-Board in its replies. In fact these petitions are opposed only on the ground of delay and laches with emphasis that the petitions have been filed only after passing of the judgment in H.P. Khadi & Village Industries Board (supra). The submission is not only misconceived but factually incorrect. It is seen that respondent-Board itself issued orders regularizing the services of the petitioners some time in the year 2007. It is also seen that they have also been independently and individually pursuing their matters with the authorities at different levels. Having accepted the 5 judgment passed by this Court and allowed it qua other employees, the respondents were duty bound to have applied the same qua at least other employees whose claims were pending adjudication. 4. Thus there shall be a direction to the respondent-Board to confer work charge status to each of the petitioners upon completion of their 10 years of service with 240 working days in each calendar year preceding 12 months, from the respective dates of their appointments. Petitioners shall also be entitled to all consequential, including monetary benefits as stand accorded to the petitioner in H.P. Khadi & Village Industries Board (supra). Needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. It is clarified that if monetary benefits, as may be found due and admissible, are not disbursed/released within the aforesaid period, then thereafter petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, all the petitions are allowed. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice 4th July, 2011 (Justice Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.