IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 16508 of 2008. Date of decision: 02.06.2011. _______________________________________________________ Jagat Ram. ….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl.A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has stated in the petition that he joined respondent-department in the year 1982 as daily rated labourer and he has been regularized with effect from 20th September, 2006 as Sweeper vide Officer Order dated 5th September, 2006. The petitioner was fixed in the pay scale of ` 2520-4140/-. The petitioner has stated that his date of birth is March, 1949 and on completion of 58 years , the petitioner has been superannuated on 31st March, 2007, whereas, the petitioner should have been superannuated on 31st March, 2009. It has been stated that petitioner joined in the year 1982 and as per policy of the government as well as judgment passed by the Apex Court, the petitioner is entitled to work charged status with effect from 1990, whereas, he has been wrongly and illegally regularized with effect from 20th September, 2006 which is illegal and unjustified on the part of the respondents. GPF and DCRG have been released to the petitioner, but neither pension nor GIS Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes amount has been sanctioned and paid to the petitioner despite repeated requests. The petitioner has rendered 25 years service, but he has not been paid any pension. It has been prayed that the respondents be directed to work out the pension of the petitioner and respondents further may be directed to release the pension to the petitioner with effect from 30th March, 2007 along with interest. The prayer has also been made for working out GIS amount and to release the same to the petitioner with interest. The petitioner has also prayed that the respondent-department may be directed to correct the date of regularization of the petitioner from 20th September, 2006 to December, 1990. 2. The petition has been contested by the respondents by filing reply. It has been stated that petitioner was engaged as daily wage ‘Beldar’ during 1.1.1991 in Forest Department, Drang Range of Mandi Forest Division. As per the government policy, his services were regularized as Sweeper with effect from 7.9.2006 purely on temporary basis vide Office Order dated 14.09.2006. The petitioner has been retired from government service on 31.12.2006 on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years. As per government notification dated 10.5.2001, the retirement age of the Class-IV employee has been reduced from 60 to 58 years. The date of birth of the petitioner is 30th December, 1948. The petitioner was due for superannuation on 31.12.2006. It has been denied that date of birth of the petitioner is of the year 1949. The petitioner has rendered 3 months 24 days of regular service and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any pension. As per CCS Temporary Rules, 1965, the petitioner is not entitled to pension nor DCRG. No GPF account has been allotted to him. Only GIS at the rate of `15/- per month was deducted from the salary of the petitioner. The payment of GIS has been released to the petitioner. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. There is nothing on record except bald assertion in the petition that petitioner was in fact engaged in the year 1982 as daily wager. The respondents in their reply have stated that petitioner was engaged on 1.1.1991 and services of the petitioner were regularized as Sweeper with effect from 7.9.2006. Once the respondents had regularized the services of the petitioner that means the petitioner had been working regularly with the respondents without any break. The question, however, is whether the petitioner is entitled to work charged status after rendering 10 years service in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya versus State of H.P. and Others 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316 or regularization of his service with effect from 7.9.2006. The respondents have not placed anything on record on what basis the services of the petitioner were regularized with effect from 7.9.2006 by ignoring the claim of the petitioner for work charged status after rendering 10 years of service as per Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra). 4. The Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra) has held as follows:- “4. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we modify the said scheme by substituting paragraphs 1 to 4 of the same by the following paragraphs: “(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 31-12-1993, shall be appointed as work-charged employees with effect from 1-1-1994 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 31-12-1993, 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 appointment 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 service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31-12- 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; (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.” 5. The petitioner was engaged on 1.1.1991 as per stand of respondents, therefore, in terms of paragraph-4 (2), of Mool Raj (supra), the petitioner is entitled to work charged status on completion of 10 years of service. On the basis of material on record, it can be safely concluded that petitioner completed 10 years of service as daily wager on 1.1.2001. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to work charged status with effect from 1.1.2001. The retiral benefits of the petitioner will be governed on the basis of his work charged status. 6. In so far as the claim of the petitioner for correction of his date of birth, there is nothing on record to show that the date of birth of the petitioner is of March, 1949. There is no reason to disbelieve the stand of the respondents that date of birth of the petitioner is 30.12.1948. The petitioner is not entitled to correction of date of birth nor any case has been made out for his superannuation on 30th March, 2009 instead of 31.12.2006. 7. In view of above discussion, the petition is partly allowed. The competent authority shall consider the case of the petitioner for giving him work charged status with effect 1.1.1991 in the light of findings recorded above. The needful be done within a period of two months from the date of supply of copy of this judgment by the petitioner to the competent authority. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all retiral benefits including pension if payable to work charged employee after adjusting amounts which have already been paid to petitioner on account of his retirement. The arrears, if any, be paid in further two months. The petition stands disposed of on above terms. June 2, 2011. (Kuldip Singh), ( krt) Judge.