CWP(T) No. 15069 of 2008. 18.12.2009 Present: Ms. Salochana Kaundal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioners were engaged as Beldars on daily wage basis in H.P.P.W.D., Killar (Pangi), District Chamba w.e.f. 1994 onwards. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman is required to put in 160 days in each calendar year to get the benefit of regularization and work charge status including the benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Petitioners are seeking directions to the respondents to confer them work charge status. Ms. Sulochana Kaundal, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have already completed the requisite number of years and there is deficiency of only few days in completing 160 days in each calendar year. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has refuted the arguments advanced by Ms. Sulochana Kaundal. I have heard the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. Respondent has filed mandays chart of all the petitioners in consolidated tabulated form. Petitioner No. 1 : 2 : was engaged in the year, 1996. He has worked uninterruptedly till 2006 and has completed 160 days in each year except in the years 1999 and 2000. He has worked for 142 days in the year 1999 and 149 days in 2000. Petitioner No. 2 has also worked uninterruptedly w.e.f. 1997 and has completed 160 days in each year except in 1999 and 2000. He has worked for 148 ½ days in the year 1999 and 150 days in the year 2000. Petitioner No. 3 has been engaged in the year 1997. He has also worked uninterruptedly from 1997 to 2006 and has completed 160 days in each calendar year except in 1999 and 2000. He has worked for 135 ½ days in 1999 and 138 days in 2000. Petitioner No. 4 has worked uninterruptedly from 1997 and has completed 160 days in each year except in the years 1999 and 2000. He has worked for 135 days in 1999 and 151 days in 2000. Petitioner No. 5 has worked uninterruptedly from 1997 and has completed 160 days in each calendar year except in 1999 and 2000. He has worked for 148 and 142 days respectively in the years 1999 and 2000. Petitioner No. 6 has also worked from 1997 till 2006 uninterruptedly and has completed 160 days in each calendar year except in 1999 and 2000. He has worked for 148 ½ days in 1999 and 151 days in 2000. Petitioner No. 7 : 3 : has worked w.e.f. 1996 and has completed 160 days in each year up to 2006 except in 1996, 1999 and 2000. She has worked for 65 days in 1996, 142 days in 1999 and 141 days in 2000. Petitioner No. 8 was engaged in the year 1994 and has worked continuously till 2006. He has worked for more than 160 days in each calendar year except in 1996, 1997 and 2000. He has worked for 129 ½ days in 1996, 154 ½ days in 1997 and 151 days in 2000. Lastly, petitioner No. 9 was engaged in the year, 1997. He has not completed 160 days in 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. The workman who is engaged in the tribal area due to geographical and harsh condition is only required to put in 160 days in each calendar year for conferring him work charge status and to get the benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is evident from the mandays chart detailed hereinabove that all petitioners except petitioner No. 9 have worked uninterruptedly for more than 8 years and there is deficiency of only few days in completing 160 days in each calendar year. It is only in the case of petitioner No. 9 that there is a large scale of deficiency for completing 160 days in each calendar year. This period cannot be condoned. : 4 : However, in the case of all the petitioners except petitioner No. 9, the respondents ought to have considered them for conferring work charge status after condoning the shortage of few days. The State being model employer in the welfare State should adopt a reasonable and pragmatic approach. The rights of the lower strata of the society cannot be set to naught by taking hypertechnical plea. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to consider the cases of all the petitioners except petitioner No. 9 for conferring work charge status in accordance with the observations made hereinabove by condoning the deficiency of few days. They are also held entitled to all the consequential benefits. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge December 18, 2009. bhupender