IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 14211 of 2008. Decided on: 16.06.2011. ___________________________________________ Kundan Singh. … Petitioner. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was engaged as daily wage labourer in 1992. He worked for 30 days in 1992. He did not work in 1993 and 1994. He worked for 31 days in 1995. Thereafter, the petitioner had continuously worked for 7 years with effect from 1996 to 2002 and had completed 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months. However, petitioner had worked for 188 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - days only in 2003. Thus, there is shortage of 52 days in completion of 240 days. Thereafter, the petitioner has worked for 317 days in 2004, 264 days in 2005 and 343 days in 2006. 2. Mr. M.L. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that fictional break of 52 days has been given to his client to prevent him from completing 240 days in 2003 to deny the status of work- charged/regular Beldar. He then argued that his client was always ready and willing to work in order to complete 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months, but he has been denied the same by not issuing the muster roll. According to him, the shortage of 52 days has to be condoned in order to enable his client to seek work-charged status/regularization immediately after completion of 8 years of continuous service. 3. Mr. Anil Jaswal, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that since the petitioner has not complete 240 days in 2003, he could not seek regularization/work-charged status. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Mr. M.L. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure R-1, the man-days chart. A bare perusal of the same, as - 3 - noticed hereinabove, makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner has continuously worked for 7 years from 1996 to 2002 and has completed 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months. There is merit in the contention of Mr. M.L. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner that his client has been given the artificial and fictional breaks of 52 days in 2003 to prevent him from completing 240 days in order to get regularization/work-charged status. Thereafter the petitioner has worked for 317 days in 2004, 264 days in 2005 and 343 days in 2006. The shortage of few days in 2003 could also be due to cession of work, non-availability of funds, illness of the petitioner etc. However, the fact of the matter is that prima facie the petitioner has been prevented from completing 240 days in 2003 to deprive him the status of work- charged/regular Beldar. The action of the respondents of preventing him from completing 240 days in 2003 amounts to unfair labour practice. He had worked continuously thereafter in 2004, 2005 and 2006 and completed more than 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months. 6. The matter is required to be considered from another angle also. In case the shortage of 52 days in 2003 is not condoned, he will have to wait for another 8 years upto 2011 to enable him to complete 8 years of continuous service with 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months. The action of - 4 - the respondents of not condoning the shortage of 52 days in 2003 is illegal and arbitrary. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for conferment of work-charged status/regularisation by condoning the shortage of 52 days in 2003 immediately after completion of 8 years of continuous service with effect from 1996, within a period of ten weeks after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner, with all consequential benefits. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. June 16, 2011. (sck).