IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 16035 of 2008. Decided on: 06.04.2010. _________________________________________________________ Smt. Bimla and others. ….Petitioners. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. .…Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioners. : Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge(Oral): Petitioners were engaged on daily wage basis in the year, 1994. They are serving in tribal areas. The requirement in tribal areas is only 160 days instead of 240 days. Respondents have not chosen to file any reply earlier. However, Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has submitted during the course of hearing that the reply was ready, but the same could not be filed inadvertently. The same is filed today in the Court and it is permitted to be taken on record. According to the Mandays Chart placed on record with the reply, petitioner No. 1 had completed 253, 235, 178 and 177 days w.e.f. 1998 to 2001 respectively. There is shortage of one day in completing 160 days in the years, 2002 and 2003. There is 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.No. shortage of 19 days in the years, 2004 and 2005. There is another shortage of 10 and 11 days in the years, 2006 and 2007. Petitioner No. 2 had completed more than 160 days from 1997 to 2001. There is shortage of one day in completing 160 days in the years, 2002 and 2003. There is shortage of 19 days in the years, 2004 and 2005. There is shortage of 10 days in 2006 and there is another shortage of 13 days in the year, 2007. Petitioner No. 3 had completed more than 160 days from 1997 to 1999. There is shortage of 27 days in 2000, one day in 2002, 36 days in 2003, 23 days in 2004, 29 days in 2005, 10 days in 2006 and 11 days in 2007. Petitioners were engaged in the year, 1994. The shortage in completion of 160 days could be due to cessation of work and the circumstances in which the petitioners may not be permitted intentionally by the employer to complete 160 days to deny them the benefit of regularization. A bare perusal of Mandays Chart relied upon by the respondents reveals that there is shortage of only few days in completing 160 days in each Calendar year, which could be condoned by the respondents taking into consideration the length of service of the petitioners. Respondent –State is a welfare State. It should not take hyper technical approach to deny the legitimate rights of the petitioners to seek conferment of work charge status or regularization after working for a number of years, as is in the present case. Their services were required to be considered in accordance with law by ignoring the shortage of few days. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioners for conferment of work charge status after condoning the shortage of few days, as noticed above within a period of ten weeks from today with all consequential benefits. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge April 06, 2010. (bhupender)