IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 585-2005 Date of decision : July 29, 2008. Jagdish Chand …Petitioner Versus. State of H.P. & anr …Respondent(s). Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge . The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja,, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting ? For the Petitioner (s): Mr. Chandernarayan Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. R.M.Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral). This petition is directed against the order of the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal dated 3.12.2004 passed in OA No. 14/1996 whereby the OA filed by the employee-petitioner has been rejected. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the employee was initially engaged on 1.1.1985 as a Wireman on daily wages in the H.P.Public Works Department and continued to work as such for more than 10 years. It is not disputed that he has completed more than 240 days in each calendar year. With effect from 1.3.1995 he was issued the muster-roll of Electrical - 2 - Mistry. In terms of the scheme approved by the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhaya’s case, the employee was entitled to be brought on the work charged cadre on completion of 10 years uninterrupted service as Wireman. The respondent- employer vide order dated 19.11.1995 has placed the employee in the work charged cadre as Work charged T-Mate in the grade of 770-1410 w.e.f. 1.1.1995. The employee filed the O.A. before the learned Tribunal praying that as per the scheme approved in Mool Raj Upadhaya’s case he was to be regularized on completion of 10 years service w.e.f. 1.1.1995 and since he had been working as Wireman on the said date, he should have been brought on the work-charged status as Wireman. The second contention was that the post of Wireman/Electrical Mistry stood abolished w.e.f. 6.4.1995 and in fact this post was merged with Electrictrian Grade II, and therefore, effectively, the original applicant should have been brought on the work charged cadre as Electrical Grade II and the scale payable to the said post should be paid to him. - 3 - The respondent- State contested the case of the applicant/employee by contending that in the meanwhile the recruitment and promotion rules had been brought into force w.e.f. 5.5.1995 and the petitioner-workman did not fulfil the requisite qualification for the post of Electrician Grade II and therefore could not be appointed as Electrician Grade II. The learned Tribunal accepted the version put forward by the State and held that the petitioner/employee was not entitled to be brought on the work charged cadre as Electrician Grade II. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/employee has filed the present writ petition. Undisputedly, the petitioner/employee was entitled to be brought on the work charged status of Wireman w.e.f. 1.1.1995 It is not disputed that as a Wireman he was getting higher daily wages than those paid to a T- Mate. The post of wireman was in existence on 1.1.1995. The case of the petitioner/employee has to be considered in the context of the rules and the post(s) applicable as on 1.1.1995. In terms of the scheme approved in Mool Raj Upadhaya’s case, the respondent- State was required to create sufficient number of work charged posts to accommodate the employees who - 4 - had completed 10 years uninterrupted service and as such it was the bounden duty of the State to ensure that w.e.f.1.1.1995, the post of Wireman is created. It is apparent from the perusal of letter dated 7.3.1995 that the post of Wireman was substituted by Electrical Misty. It is also not disputed that the post of Electrical Mistry was clubbed with the post of Electrician Grade II on 6.4.1995. Therefore w.e.f. 6..4.1995 the petitioner should have automatically been re-designated and placed in the cadre of Electrical Grade II. The argument of the State that the petitioner/employee does not fulfil the essential qualification as required for filling up the post of Electrical Grade II, does not hold water. This is so because the rules came into force w.e.f. 5.5.1995 whereas the post of Wireman and Electrical Mistry stood abolished in April, 1995 and on that date petitioner/employee would have automatically been designated as Electrician Grade II. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner/employee as Wireman/ Electrical Mistry w.e.f. 1.1.1995 and as Electrician Grade II w.e.f. 6.4.1992 with all consequential benefits. - 5 - The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. July 29, 2008 ( V.K.Ahuja ), J. s.