IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.: 1617 of 2010. Decided on: 22.07.2010. __________________________________________________________ Prem Bahadur. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. For the petitioner : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the following relief(s):- “(i) That the respondents may be ordered to grant work charge status to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.2003 with all the benefits incidental thereof such as full back wages, seniority and pay fixation etc. in the light of judgment rendered in ‘Fool Maya Vrs. State of H.P.” 2. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP(T) No.10220 of 2008 (OA No.240 of 2004), titled Phool Maya versus State of H.P. & Others, dated 17.3.2010. The learned single Judge has held as under:- - 2 - “The letter dated 11.7.2000 provides for amendment of Rule 14 of existing standard proforma of Recruitment and Promotion Rules (Essential requirement for direct recruitment). The letter dated 11.7.2000 does not affect the case of petitioner for more than one reason. There is nothing on record to show that in pursuance of letter dated 11.7.2000, Annexure R-1 Rules were amended and new Rule 14 was incorporated . The new Rule is meant for direct recruitment whereas case of petitioner is of appointment under first part of Rule 10 which is different from direct recruitment. In addition, petitioner has attained eligibility for work charge status on 1.2.2000 much before amendment was proposed on 11.7.2000 in the existing standard proforma of Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Therefore, letter dated 11.7.2000 does not affect the claim of petitioner for work charge status on completion of 10 years continuous service with 240 days in each year w.e.f. 1.2.1990. The petitioner has completed 10 years of continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year as daily wage Beldar, her case is squarely covered by the judgment of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra). According to Mool Raj’s case the Beldars, who have completed 10 years of service upto 31.12.1993 shall get work-charge status w.e.f. 1.1.1994 and the Beldars, who will complete 10 years after 31.12.1993 shall get the work charge status on completion of 10 years. In the present case, since the respondents have not denied the fact that the petitioner has completed 10 years of continuous service with minimum of 240 days in each calendar year starting from 1.2.1990, therefore, on completion of 10 years w.e.f. 1.2.1990, the petitioner is entitled to work-charge status as per Mool Raj - 3 - Upadhyaya (supra). In these circumstances, the petition deserves to be allowed.” 3. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to respondent No.2 for redressal of her grievance. Respondent No.2 shall decide the representation strictly as per the principles laid down by this Court in the abovementioned case, within a period of ten weeks after the supply of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. 4. Consequently, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. July 22, 2010. (sck/awasthi).