IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T)No. 10896 of 2008 Decided on : 21.03.2011 Gauri Dutt ..… Petitioner. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. None for respondent No.4. V.K.Sharma, Judge (oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayer:- “That the respondents may be ordered to grant the work-charged status to the applicant w.e.f 1.1.1994 with all the benefits incidental thereof such as full back arrears of pay and seniority etc.” 2. In reply, respondents No. 1 to 3 have taken the following stand vide para 1 of the preliminary submissions:- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 “That in the present case, the applicant while filing present O.A. has claimed relief in para 7 to the O.A. to the extent that respondents may be ordered to grant the work charged status to the applicant from 01.01.1994 alongwith all consequential benefits. To the same it is submitted that in the respondent/department upon the verdict of case Mool Raj Upadhyay V/S State of H.P., various daily wages workers have been regularized upon completion of 10 years or more continuous service strictly on the basis of seniority as per availability of sanctioned post by the respondent/department. The said regularization process continued during the applicability of said policy various categories of workers were regularized retrospectively as the day post was sanctioned by the respondent State they had already completed required number of year i.e. eligibility criteria which the applicant could not complete due to break during the year 1991. However, retrospective regularization was causing financial hardships to the respondent State in view of payment of arrear. Hence, the respondent State in the year 2000 amended the said regularization policy. Both the policies are annexed herewith as Annexures R-I and R-II for the kind perusal of Hon’ble Tribunal. The perusal of Annexure R-II para 2 shall reveal that the regularization henceforth was to be carried out prospectively but not retrospectively. Further more the said regularization can not be claimed as a matter 3 of right, but the same is subject to the availability of sanctioned posts. The said view have also been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court in C.W.P. No. 481 of 1995 titled State of H.P. V/s Dhyan Singh decided on 09.04.2003. The copy of the same is annexed as Annexure R-III. In the present case the applicant was engaged in the respondent/department during the year 1984 as daily waged beldar and worked in the same category continuously except in the year 1991 when he had worked for 183 days as such last continuity as well as past seniority. However, on 22.07.2002, 12.09.2002 and 06.01.2003 vide Annexures R-IV and R-V, R-VI, respectively the respondent State conveyed sanction of various posts in the category of daily wagers working in the respondent department. The applicant was working in the category of daily wagers working in the respondent department. The applicant was working in the category of daily wager beldar to which category total 753 + 1086 + 1138 posts respectively were sanctioned by the respondent State. Accordingly upon receipt of said sanction the Office of replying respondent convened screening committee meting and after considering the eligible workers as per the criteria fixed and also as per the instructions contained in Annexure R-II and R-V to VI, the regularization process was carried in the category of work- Charge Beldar by making offer of appointment to the eligible Daily Waged 4 Beldar. In consequence to the said process the applicant could not be regularized because since 1992 though he is in continuous service in respondent department on daily wage basis up till now but there are other persons senior to him in the same category. Thus, as per number of posts so sanctioned daily wage workers senior to the applicant were regularized/made work Charged and applicant could not. Hence, as per law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court on 09.04.2003 Annexure- R-III, the applicant yet could not be offered work charge status due to non-availability of sanctioned posts as well as lower seniority of the applicant due to break in the year 1991. The working days detail of applicant are annexed as Annexure R-VII. Accordingly, the applicant is not entitled for the claimed relief and neither he can be regularized during the year 1994 due to break in the year 1991 nor during the year 2003 due to lower seniority of continuous service. As such, neither any legal or equity right of the applicant have never been infringed in any manner nor any cause of action accrues to him to file and maintain the present O.A.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the very outset that the case of the petitioner is covered under judgment dated 25.02.2011, rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.P.(T) No. 14372 of 2008, tilted Lal Singh vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. 5 4. In view of the above, if on facts, the case of the petitioner is covered under the judgment dated 25.2.2011, in CWP(T) No. 14372 of 2008 and the same has been implemented and the petitioner is similarly situate, he shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and the benefit of said judgment shall be extended to him alongwith consequential benefits, if any, within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner. 5. The petition, as also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 21st March, 2011. Lsp*