CWP(T) No. 7189/2008 18.08.2010 Present: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondents. According to Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the petitioner the matter in issue is squarely covered by judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2788 of 2010, Amar Singh v. State of H.P. & Ors., copy of which is taken on record. In Amar Singh supra, the Court has observed as under:- “2. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General in fact inviting reference to Annexure R-1 policy submits that the Government framed a policy for conferment of daily waged workers status in respect of part time workers, who completed 10 years of service. The Annexure R-1, letter dated 5.7.2007 covers those part time Class-IV employees having completed 10 years continuous service as on 31st March, 2006. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner was granted the daily waged status from January, 2008 after completing the codal formalities as per Annexure R-1. But it is seen from Annexure P-3 proceedings of Director Social Justice and Empowerment, Himachal Pradesh dated 22nd May, 2004 that the Government had issued earlier letter dated 27.2.2004 for conferment of daily wager status to those part time workers who have completed 10 years of service. We find that as many as 21 such part time workers have been granted the benefit also. It is the contention of the learned Senior Additional Advocate General that Annexure P-3 pertains only to the Social Justice and Empowerment Department. It is true that Annexure P-3 is in respect of those 21 daily wagers of the Social Justice and Empowerment Department but the Government letter does not give any indication that it is confined to only one Department. Apparently, it is the policy decision taken by the Government. The Government cannot differentiate one Department to another. In case in one Department of the Government, part time workers with 10 years of service have been granted the daily waged status, similarly situated part time workers with the same length of service of the other Departments are also entitled to the same benefit lest the action of the State would attract Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in terms of the Government letter dated 27.2.2004 referred to in Annexure P-3, the petitioner shall also be given a similar status. The needful in this regard shall be done within a period of 2 months from the date of production of the copy of the judgment by the petitioner.” The petitioner was appointed as a Cook on part time basis w.e.f. 15.11.1988. He completed 10 years of his service as part time Cook on 15.11.1998. Even thereafter, petitioner has continued to perform his duties. As such, the directions issued in Amar Singh (supra) squarely apply to the instant case also. Consequential action be positively taken within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The petition stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 18, 2010 (vt)