IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8064 of 2010 along with CWP Nos. 1824, 2184, 2451, 3097, 3098, 3100, 4942 3354, 4726, 4727, 4728, 4729, 4732, 4893, 4894, 4897, 4898, 4899, 4900, 4939, 4940, 4941, 4943, 4944, 4945 of 2009, 7206, 7208, 7210, 7258, 7259 and 7267 of 2010. Date of decision: 31.12.2010. 1. CWP No. 8064 of 2010 Pushpa Devi v. State of H.P. & Ors 2. CWP No. 1824 of 2009 Kapoor Singh v. State of H.P. & Ors 3. CWP No. 2184 of 2009 Hem Raj & Ors. v. State of H.P. & Ors 4. CWP No. 2451 of 2009 Kushal Singh & Ors. v. State of H.P. & Ors 5. CWP No. 3097 of 2009 Bhola Dutt v. State of H.P. & Ors 6. CWP No. 3098 of 2009 Hema Nand v. State of H.P. & Ors 7. CWP No. 3100 of 2009 Amir Sukh & Ors. v. State of H. P. & Ors. 8. CWP No. 4942 of 2009 Madan Singh v. State of H. P. & Ors. 9. CWP No. 3354 of 2009 Khem Singh & Ors. v. State of H. P. & Ors. 10. CWP No. 4726 of 2009 Devi Singh v. State of H. P. & Ors. 11. CWP No. 4727 of 2009 Sher Singh v. State of H. P. & Ors. 12. CWP No. 4728 of 2009 Tilak Raj v. State of H. P. & Ors. 13. CWP No. 4729 of 2009 Sohan Singh v. State of H. P. & Ors. 14. CWP No. 4732 of 2009 Lok Ram v. State of H. P. & Ors. 15. CWP No. 4893 of 2009 Ganga Ram v. State of H. P. & Ors. 16. CWP No. 4894 of 2009 Kamla Ram v. State of H. P. & Ors. 17. CWP No. 4897 of 2009 Bansi Lal v. State of H. P. & Ors. 18. CWP No. 4898 of 2009 Prem Lal Sharma v. State of H. P. & Ors. 19. CWP No. 4899 of 2009 Inder Singh v. State of H. P. & Ors. 20. CWP No. 4900 of 2009 Hira Lal v. State of H. P. & Ors. 21. CWP No. 4939 of 2009 Kewal Ram v. State of H. P. & Ors. 22. CWP No. 4940 of 2009 Shiv Ram v. State of H. P. & Ors. 23. CWP No. 4941 of 2009 Budhi Ram v. State of H. P. & Ors. 24. CWP No. 4943 of 2009 Ranjeet Singh v. State of H. P. & Ors. 25. CWP No. 4944 of 2009 2 Rania Ram v. State of H. P. & Ors. 26. CWP No. 4945 of 2009 Rajinder Singh v. State of H. P. & Ors. 27. CWP No. 7206 of 2010 Padam Singh v. State of H. P. & Ors. 28. CWP No. 7208 of 2010 Rajesh Kumar v. State of H. P. & Ors. 29. CWP No. 7210 of 2010 Muni Lal v. State of H. P. & Ors. 30. CWP No. 7258 of 2010 Payare Lal v. State of H. P. & Ors. 31. CWP No. 7259 of 2010 Jai Dev v. State of H. P. & Ors. 32. CWP No. 7267 of 2010 Barfu Ram v. State of H. P. & Ors. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. Narender Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. ( Oral ) . It is submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the petitioners by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 3 7896 of 2010, titled Jai Singh versus State of H. P. and Others. The text of the judgment reads as follows: “The issue raised in these writ petitions pertains to the claim made by the petitioners for regularization in service in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Department of Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy, Class IV Karamchari (Non- Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules (First Amendment) Rules, 1998. The petitioners have been originally engaged as part time workers. According to them, they are entitled for regularization in terms of Rule 10 of the Rules. Rule 10 reads as follows: “10. Method of recruitment whether by direct recruitment or by promotion, deputation, transfer and the percentage of vacancies to be filled in by various methods. 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by appointment from amongst the wholly paid daily waged Class-IV workers of the department who possess at least 10 years service having 240 days in each calendar year, failing which by appointment from amongst the departmental working Part-time workers who also possess at least 10 service having 240 days in each calendar year, failing which by direct recruitment.” 2. According to the petitioners, they are entitled for regularization in respect of 50% quota of the posts reserved for either the daily waged workers or the part time workers. The contention of the petitioners is that there were no daily waged Class-IV workers available in the Department with 10 years service and having 240 days in each calendar year for regularization and hence in respect of the 50 % vacancies, the petitioners who have been working as part time workers and who possess 10 years service with 240 days in each calendar year should have been considered, since on the date of completion of 10 years of service by such part time workers there were no eligible daily wager for regularization. 3. The Learned Deputy Advocate General rightly points out that the matter requires factual verification by the competent authority. 4 4. As far as the provision in the Rules is concerned, there is no ambiguity. 50% of the regular posts are reserved for the daily waged workers with 10 years service and having 240 days in each calendar year. In case, there is no such daily wager is available on the date of occurrence of vacancy with the above qualification, then the part time workers with 10 years of service and 240 days in each calender year if available are to be considered. That alone will serve the object of the Rules. So long as the position in the Rules remains as above, such part time workers have a right to be considered, subject to the preconditions of availability of vacancy in the quota, non- availability of eligible daily wagers and the part timers possessing the eligibility. As far as the regularization of part time employees are concerned, it is to be seen that the Ayurveda and Education Departments are to follow their own policies as available in the prescribed Rules and hence the notification pertaining to other Departments will not apply to the employees in the matter of part time becoming full time daily wager as per the Rules. It is so clarified also in Annexure P-3, Government Communication dated 21.5.2004, which reads as follows: “I am directed to refer to your letter No. Ayu.Kha(2)2/2003 dated 28.4.2004 on the subject cited above and to say that Ayurveda Department and Education Department have their own policies relating to Part Time workers hence it has been decided that these departments will not be covered by the instructions issued by this Department on 27.2.2004 regarding conversion of daily wager status, it is therefore requested that further action in the matter may please be taken accordingly to your own level.” 5. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the second respondent/competent authority to look into this aspect, verify the facts and take appropriate action in the light of the Rules, as explained above within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment and a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner concerned before the second respondent/competent authority, so also the pending applications, if any.” 2. In case the petitioners are similarly situated as the petitioner referred to in the judgment as above, similar treatment 5 shall also be extended to the petitioners as extended to the petitioner in CWP No.7896 2010, titled Jai Singh versus State of H. P. and others. We make it clear that consideration shall be made in terms of the Rules as existing at the time of occurrence of vacancy. It is also clarified that the nomenclature between the part time workers and part time sweeper shall not make any difference since rule speaks of the part time workers whether they sweep or whether they do any other work. 3. With these observations, the writ petitions stand disposed of, so also the pending application(s) if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. December 31, 2010 (Justice V.K. Sharma), (jai/naveen) Judge. 6