IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 11658 of 2008 Date of decision: 18.05.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Lekh Ram. .....Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Bhim Raj, Advocate, vice counsel For the respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. AG. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7(i) & (ii): “7(i) That the respondents may be directed to provide status of workcharge for Class III post i.e. Bill Clerk w.e.f. Dec., 1999 after completion of 10 years of continuous service which has been completed in the year Dec., 1999. (ii) That after providing workcharge status from Dec., 1999 as Bill Clerk after completion of 10 years of service the applicant be provided entire benefits of service.” 2. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand in preliminary submissions vide para 3: “3. That the applicant has filed the present amended O.A. seeking the relief to give him work charge status for class III post i.e. Bill clerk from December, 1999 after the completion of 10 years continues service. In this connection it is submitted that the applicant has worked as Beldar w.e.f. 2.1.89 to 31.5.89 & 11.7.90 to 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... 20.5.94 and as Complaint Attendant/Bill Clerk w.e.f. 1.6.89 to 30.6.90 & 21.5.94 to till regularization. The detail of mandays chart is annexed as Annexure R-I. Therefore in view of the policy framed by the govt and in terms of Judgment passed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mool Eraj Upadhayay's v/s State of H.p. & others. The applicant was duly considered even prior to completion of 10 years i.e. 9 years as on 31.3.1998 and was appointed/regularized as work charge Beldar, in the corresponding lowest grade. It is stated that, the applicant has worked in various capacities and corresponding lowest grade in which the applicant has worked was Beldar, as such the applicant was entitled to be considered for work charge status as Beldar therefore was offered the post of Beldar in the year 1999 w.e.f. 1.4.1998 but applicant did not join. It is submitted that 10 years policy of Govt. underwent a change from time to time. As per the policies of regularization circulated in 1998 a workman who has completed 9 years of service as on 31.3.1998 was to be considered for regularization w.e.f. 1.4.98 accordingly the applicant was offered the post of Beldar vide order dated 21.12.1999 w.e.f. 1.4.1998 but he did not join his duties. A copy of appointment order is annexed as Annexure R-II. Therefore the claim of applicant for Work Charge status w.e.f. 1.1.1999 is not maintainable at this stage, when he did not join as the same despite being regularized earlier. It is further stated that once again the Govt. circulated another policy wherein a workman who had completed 8 years of continuous service as on 31.3.2000 was to be considered for regularization w.e.f. prospective date due to financial constraints. Therefore, once again applicant was considered, and in 2002 was again eligible for and was offered a post of Beldar vide office order dated 19.12.2002 (Annexure R-III). This time he accepted the offer and joined under protest (Annexure R-IV). Thereafter the applicant continued to work as Beldar till date i.e., after 13.1.2003. Therefore he is not entitled to work charge status w.e.f. 1.1.1999 as claimed. Hence the O.A. deserves to be dismised in limine.” 3. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, he may certainly point out the same before respondent No. 2/competent authority by way of appropriate representation supported by documents, if any, alongwith copy of this judgment ...3... within two months from today, who shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter within further three months in accordance with law, particularly the law laid down by this Court in Gauri Dutt & Ors. vs. State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366. 4. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 18th May, 2011 (virender)