IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 15433 of 2008. Decided on 14.06.2010. Bija Ram and others. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner No. 1 was engaged as daily wage workman in the year, 1996. He has worked for 147 days in 1996 and for 238 days in 1997 and 1998, respectively. He has worked for 239 days in 1999. Thereafter, he had been working continuously and completed 240 days in each calendar year up to 2005. Petitioner No. 2 was engaged in the year, 1996. He has worked for 120 days in 1996. He has worked for 238 days in 1997 and 1998, respectively and for 239 days in 1999. Thereafter, he has worked continuously and completed more than 240 days in each calendar year up to 2005. Petitioner No. 3 was engaged in the year, 1996. He has worked for 60 days in 1996, 220 days in 1997, 235 days in 1998 and 238 days in 1999. Thereafter, he worked continuously 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - and completed 240 days in each calendar year up to 2005. Petitioner No. 4 was appointed/engaged in the year, 1997. He has worked for 173 days in 1997, 239 days in 1998 and 1999. Thereafter, he has worked continuously and completed 240 days in each calendar year up to 2005. Petitioners had earlier approached the learned erstwhile Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application No. 3146 of 2000. The learned Tribunal disposed of the petition on 17.03.2006 by passing the following order: “Heard. The case of the applicants is that they have been continuously working for the respondents since 1995 for minimum 240 days in a calendar year but the respondents in between terminate their services which is illegal and arbitrary. In view of the reply filed by the respondents, there can not be any dispute that the applicants still continue to work with the respondents, though in intervals. In these circumstances, the only order which can be passed in this original application is that the respondents shall allow the applicants to continue to work if work the funds are available and their junior continues to be engaged. This original application is disposed of in terms of above orders. “ 2. The case of the petitioners, in a nut-shell, is that since they had completed more than eight years of continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year, their services are required to be regularized. The case of the respondent-State precisely is that the petitioners had completed 240 days in each calendar year w.e.f. 2000 only. - 3 - 3. Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure R-1, i.e., Mandays Chart of the petitioners. According to the Mandays Chart, petitioner No. 1 had worked for 238 days in 1997 and 1998, respectively and for 239 days in 1999. There is shortage of only 1 /2 days in completing 240 days. This shortage could be due to cessation of work and non-availability of funds etc.. It is also apparent that he has been prevented from completing 240 days in 1997, 1998 and 1999. It amounts to unfair labour practice. Similarly, petitioner No. 2 has also been prevented from completing 240 days in 1997, 1998 and 1999. There is shortage of only 1 /2 days in completing 240 days. Petitioner No. 3 has also been prevented from completing 240 days in 1997, 1998 and 1999. In the year, 1997, there is shortage of twenty days, five days in 1998 and two days in 1999. Similarly, petitioner No. 4 has also been prevented from completing 240 days in 1998 and 1999 respectively. There is shortage of only one day in 1998 and 1999. 4. It is apparent from the facts enumerated hereinabove, that there is shortage of only few days in completing 240 days in each calendar year by the petitioners. The respondent-State is a welfare State. It can not be oblivious to its social obligations while dealing with the lowest strata of the society. The action of the respondents of not permitting the petitioners to complete 240 days in each calendar year and further not condoning the shortage of few days, amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is reiterated that the shortage of days can - 4 - be due to various reasons, namely cessation of work, illness, non- availability of funds etc.. We do not know whether the respondent- State has counted Sundays and paid holidays while calculating 240 days. In case shortage of few days, as noticed above, had been condoned by the respondent-State, the petitioners would have completed 240 days in 2004 and were liable to be regularized. 5. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The shortage of few days, as noticed above, is condoned and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization w.e.f. 2004 with all consequential benefits. The needful shall be done within a period of ten weeks from today. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge June 14, 2010. (bhupender) - 5 -