CWP(T) No. 7293/2008 10.09.2010 Present: Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. for the respondents. Mr. Ranjan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner restricts the petition qua reliefs No. (i) & (ii). From Annexure A-8 which is the seniority list pertaining to the Electrician Grade-I, it is evident that petitioner Madan Lal was working as such from the year 1987 onwards. It is also evident that from the year 1987 upto the year 1996 petitioner had completed more than 240 days in each calendar year. 2. In terms of Notification dated 14.11.1995 (Annexure A-7) issued by the respondents-department, it is evident that certain categories of work charged/work charged brought into regular cadre were clubbed and re-categorized as Electrician Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2100. It is also pertinent to note that for the purposes of appointment/promotion, a combined seniority list was to be maintained at the State/Circle/ Divisional level of the eligible persons and their date of appointment in their respective feeder category was to be taken into account without disturbing their unit- wise inter se seniority. Thus petitioner was entitled to pay scale of Rs.1200-2100 and his seniority was to be maintained. 3. Sometime in the year 1998, respondents took a decision, as is evident from Annexure A-9, of according the status of work charged employees as Electrician Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs.950-1800. This was effective from 1.1.1997. The action of the respondents, alleged to be in conflict with its own notification, was not accepted by the petitioner and consequently he made a representation (Annexure A-10) against the same. Respondents, in terms of order dated 10.5.1999 (Annexure A-11), reiterated their stand taken in terms of Annexure A-9 and again offered him temporary post of Electrician Grade-II but in the revised pay scale of Rs.3120-5160 which earlier was Rs.950-1800. 4. It is this action which has been assailed by the petitioner. 5. Respondents have opposed the petition primarily on the ground that the case of the petitioner was covered by the decision taken by the Government on 30.3.1999 (Annexure RA). 6. Now this document cannot be said to have retrospectively curtailed the right which already accrued to the petitioner. Undoubtedly, in fact admittedly, petitioner was working in the capacity of Electrician Grade-I between the year 1987 upto 1996. He ought to have been regularized/accorded work charged status as Grade-I only. More so when the respondents themselves had clubbed and categorized various categories of posts as Electrician Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2100. Petitioner could not have been regularized in a scale lower than what was accorded to him in terms of Annexure A-7. 7. It is pertinent to point out that even as per the respondents own document dated 30.8.1997/10.9.1997 (Annexure RB), the pay scale of Rs.950-1800 was given to skilled and semi skilled persons whereas as per Annexure A-4 dated 20.5.1995, Electrician Grade-I was categorized as highly skilled personnel. 8. Hence petition needs to be allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s case for regularization/ according work charged status as Electrician Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2100 (revised scale of Rs.4020-6200). 9. Consequential action be positively taken within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. September 10, 2010 ( Sanjay Karol ), (rana) Judge.