IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos. 1109, 1059, 1062, 1158, 1163, 1203, 1204, 1218, 1219, 1221, 1222, 1223 and 1242 of 2006 Date of decision: 7.1.2008 1. CWP No. 1109 of 2006 State of H.P. and others ..Petitioners Versus Inder Dutt ..Respondent 2. CWP No. 1159 of 2006 State of H.P. and others ..Petitioners Versus Chunni Lal ..Respondent 3. CWP No. 1062 of 2006 State of H.P. and others ..Petitioners Versus Atma Ram ..Respondent 4. CWP No. 1158 of 2006 State of H.P. and others ..Petitioners Versus Tej Ram ..Respondent 5. CWP No. 1163 of 2006 State of H.P. and others ..Petitioners 2 Versus Budhi Singh ..Respondent 6. CWP No. 1203 of 2006 State of H.P. and others ..Petitioners Versus Mohan Lal ..Respondent 7. CWP No. 1204 of 2006 State of H.P. and others ..Petitioners Versus Manghar Ram ..Respondent 8. CWP No. 1218 of 2006 State of H.P. and others ..Petitioners Versus Leela Bisht ..Respondent 9. CWP No. 1219 of 2006 State of H.P. and others ..Petitioners Versus Sunil Kumar ..Respondent 10. CWP No. 1221 of 2006 State of H.P. and others ..Petitioners Versus 3 Chain Singh ..Respondent 11. CWP No. 1222 of 2006 State of H.P. and others ..Petitioners Versus Shashi Pal ..Respondent 12. CWP No. 1223 of 2006 State of H.P. and others ..Petitioners Versus Girdhari Lal ..Respondent 13. CWP No. 1242 of 2006 State of H.P. and others ..Petitioners Versus Chandermani Sharma ..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. R.M.Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents: S/Sh. R.D.Kaundal, Naresh Kaul, Amandeep Sharma and Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocates. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 4 In all these cases we are concerned with those employees who had completed at least one year i.e. 240 days of service in a calendar year on or before 31st December, 1993. In Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case the Apex Court had passed the following directions:- “1. Daily wage/Muster Roll Workers, whether skilled or unskilled, who have completed 10 years or more of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on Deceber 21, 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 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 appointed 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 continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on Deceber 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; 5 4. Daily-wage/Muster Roll Workers shall be regularized in a phased manner on the basis of seniority-cum- suitability including physical fitness. On regularization 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.” We have already held in CWP No. 778 of 2006 and connected matters that the employees who had completed one year of service as on 31.12.1993 were entitled to be placed on work charged basis on completion of 10 years’ of service in terms of para 2 of the scheme, as interpreted by the Apex Court in State of H.P. Vs. Gehar Singh reported in Latest HLJ 2006 (SC) 363. Admittedly, the employees in these cases had completed at least one year of service prior to 31.12.1993, therefore, they are covered under para 2 of the scheme, as approved in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case and are also entitled to be placed on work charged basis with all consequential benefits on their completion of 10 years of continuous service on daily rated basis. The orders of the learned Tribunal directing that the employees be granted work charge status on completion of 10 years’ continuous service as daily 6 waged employees calls for no interference. The writ petitions are without any merit and are rejected accordingly. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. January 7, 2008(K) ( V. K. Ahuja ), J.