IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.:7902/2008 Decided on:23.4.2009 Mohan Lal Thakur. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. yes. For the petitioner : Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioner was engaged as a daily-wage worker in the respondent-department with effect from 1968. He worked in the same capacity for 33 long years. He has continuously worked for 240 days in each year from 1968 till 2001 except for the years 1992 and 1993. His case for regularization was not considered by the respondent-department only on the ground that he had not completed 240 days in the years 1992 and 1993. The State Government has framed a policy for regularization of services of the persons appointed on daily wage basis pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Mool Raj Upadhaya” case. Initially 10 years period was prescribed by the respondent-State for 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 regularizing the persons appointed on daily wage basis, however, subsequently the same was reduced to 8 years. Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate has strenuously argued that his client had worked for 33 years and only on two occasions he had not completed 240 days i.e. 1992 and 1993. He has further contended that the respondents were bound to consider the case of the petitioner by condoning the deficiency of 50 days in the years 1992 and 1993. He has termed the action of the respondents of not regularizing the services of his client as ‘unfair labour practice’. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that since the petitioner had completed only 210 and 212 days in the years 1992 and 1993 respectively, he could not be regularized. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. It is indeed a hard case. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1968. He has discharged his duties from 1968 to 1991. He has completed 240 days every year except in the years 1992 and 1993. He had completed 210 and 212 days in the years 1992 and 1993 as per Annexure R-I. This case was required to be considered by the respondents on the basis of overall working days the petitioner had worked on daily wage basis. His case was required to be considered with humane approach. The respondents were dealing with the case of a workman who had rendered 33 years long service with them. There was only shortfall of 30 days in the year 1992 and 28 days in the year 1993. This short period was required to be over looked/condoned by the respondents. The action of the respondents of not condoning shortage of few days, as noticed above, amounts to unfair labour practice. It has also led to discrimination as far as the case of the petitioner for regularization is 3 concerned. The persons, who had only rendered 10 years or 8 years of service, were regularized and the petitioner who has worked for 33 years and has completed 240 days every year has been over looked. He retired without being regularized after attaining the age of 60 years. In case he had been regularized immediately after completion of 10 years service, he was bound to get the retiral benefits. He has been deprived of the same. The State must always remember the preamble of the Constitution where the expression “socialist” has been broadly printed. The State should not adopt a very hyper technical approach more particularly while dealing with lower strata of the society. They need succor and support of the State. The State was not dealing with an isolated case of an individual. His entire family was dependant on him and was looking forward to regularization of their bread earner to enable him to get retiral benefits. It is not that the petitioner has been deprived of the right of regularization but he has been left high and dry by a very mechanical approach adopted by the respondent-State. A period of 33 yeas is a long spell. It takes heavy toll of a person who is employed to do the manual work. The wages which are paid to him are only sufficient to make two ends meet that too when he is employed. It is in these circumstances that a conscious decision has been taken by the State to frame a policy to regularize the services of a daily wage person by giving him work charge status on completion of 10 years or 8 years period. A person appointed on daily wage based is ill- equipped for extreme winter conditions and has to perform arduous duties in scorching heat. He builds bridges, roads, hospitals, including schools. He needs fair support of the society. The decisions/actions to be taken by the persons at the helm of affairs must be reasonable, fair and humane. The cases like the present one must be decided by taking compassionate view as well. The right to life includes decent life. To earn pension is also 4 a fundamental right. The pension is granted/allowed after a person puts in not less than 10 years of continuous service. A daily wager cannot be left in lurch. He also needs decent life in the twilight of his career. A person who toils hard for 33 years cannot keep his body and soul together after certain age. This is how the concept of pension has come in. It provides necessary comfort to a person and his family to keep their hearth burning. The decision of the respondent not to regularize the services of the petitioner merely on the ground that there is shortfall of 50 odd days in the entire service career spreading over 33 long years is declared arbitrary. It also amounts to unfair labour practice. It is not open to the State to keep a person employed on daily wages for a period of 33 years and then to deny him the benefits of regularization on flimsy ground that there is shortfall of few days in the years 1992 and 1993. The deficiency of total 50 days in the years 1992 and 1993, as noticed above, is condoned. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. In normal circumstances the Court could direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization taking into consideration that he has worked for 33 long years, however, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, as noticed above, the respondents are directed to regularize the petitioner immediately after the completion of period of 10 years of service by ignoring shortfall of 50 days in the years 1992 and 1993 respectively. He is held entitled to retiral benefits to be paid in accordance with law. This entire exercise be undertaken by the respondents within a period of six weeks from today. 23.4.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*