IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 10077 of 2008 Decided on : 22.3.2011 Vitta Ram …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The petitioner was engaged as Beldar on muster-roll basis in February, 1990 in HPPWD Division, Jawali, Sub Division, Kotla. The petitioner has prayed for his regularisation w.e.f. 1.4.1999 and has also prayed a direction to the respondents to pay him the arrears of salary and annual increments after his regularisation w.e.f. 1.4.1999. However, in rejoinder, the petitioner has confined his claim for work charge status as Beldar after completion of 10 years of service. The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the stand of the petitioner for grant of work charge status as prayed in the rejoinder instead of regularisation as submitted in the petition. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for grant of work charge status the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2 case of the petitioner is covered by Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. 1994 (2) SLR 377. 2. The claim of the petitioner has been contested by respondents by filing reply in which it has been stated that regularisation policy of work charged category has been formulated by the Government in accordance with judgment in Mool Raj Upadhyaya given by the Supreme Court. The services of daily wagers are being regularised in accordance with the said regularisation policy and also as per the recruitment and promotion rules. The respondents have relied on regularisation policy dated 6.5.2000 for this purpose. The respondents have taken the stand that in view of the regularisation policy dated 6.5.2000 the petitioner is not entitled to work charge status or regularisation. 3. The petitioner has been given work charge status on 20.12.2002. In Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra) the Supreme Court in para 4 of the judgment has held as under:- “Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we modify the said scheme by substituting paragraphs 1 to 4 of the same by the following paragraphs: “(1) Daily-wage/Muster Roll Workers, whether skilled or unskilled, who have completed 10 years or more of continuation service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on December 31, 1993 shall be appointed as work-charged employees with effect from January 1, 1994 and shall be put in the time scale of pay applicable to the corresponding lowest grade in the Government; (2) Daily-Wage/Muster Roll Workers, whether skilled or unskilled, who have not completed 10 years of 3 continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on December 31, 1993, shall be appointed as work-charged employees with effect from the date they complete the said period of 10 years of service and on such appointment they shall be put in the time scale of pay applicable to the lowest grade in the Government; (3) Daily-Wage/Muster Roll Workers, whether skilled or unskilled, who have not completed 10 years of service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on December 31, 1993, shall be paid daily wages at the rates prescribed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time for daily- wage employees falling in Class III and Class IV till they are appointed as work-charged employees in accordance with paragraph 2; (4) Daily-Wage/Muster Roll Workers shall be regularised in a phased manner on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability including physical fitness. On regularisation they shall be put in the minimum of the time scale payable to the corresponding lowest grade applicable to the Government and would be entitled to all other benefits available to regular Government servants of the corresponding grade.” The Scheme, as modified, shall be implemented with effect from January 1, 1994 and if any excess amount has been received by any employee on the basis of the interim orders passed by this Court, the same shall not be required to be refunded by him.” 4. It has not been denied by the respondents that the petitioner was engaged in February, 1990 and petitioner has completed 10 years service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year from his initial engagement. The sub-para (2) of para 4 in Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra) provides that Daily- Wage/Muster Roll Workers, whether skilled or unskilled, who have 4 not completed 10 years of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on December 31, 1993, shall be appointed as work-charged employees with effect from the date they complete the said period of 10 years of service and on such appointment they shall be put in the time scale of pay applicable to the lowest grade in the Government. The case of the petitioner is fully covered by sub- para (2) of para 4 of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra). 5. The respondents have taken the stand that the work- charge status has been given to the petitioner w.e.f. 20.12.2002 as per the policy dated 6.5.2000. The policy relied by the respondents is not applicable in the present case in as much as the petitioner has completed 10 years before the coming into force the policy dated 6.5.2000 relied by the respondents. The petitioner is entitled to work charge status on completion of 10 years of service as per Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra). Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to give work charge status to the petitioner in terms of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra) within a period of six weeks from the date of supply of copy of this judgment by the petitioner to the competent authority. The petition stands disposed of on above terms. ( Kuldip Singh ), March 22, 2010. Judge. (GR)