IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 6483 of 2008 Date of decision: 26.10.2010. Kamla Devi ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Verma vice Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- (i) That the respondents may be directed to consider and to appoint the applicant as a regular Sweeper w.e.f. the date when the junior part time Sweeper i.e. the respondent No. 5 was appointed on regular basis, without considering the applicant, with all consequential benefits forthwith. 2. In the reply, it is stated as follows:- “It is further submitted that present claim of the applicant is for the regularization of her part-time service and in the alternate appointment on daily wages basis. As for the regularization of part-time services, since there is no provision under the existing rules the claim of the applicant is not tenable. The claim of the applicant that in alternate, she - 2 - be appointed on daily wages as respondent No. 5 Shri Shyam Kumar has also been appointed, the same is also not tenable in that neither the name of the applicant was ever sponsored by the respective Exchange, nor she applied for the same. It is relevant to submit here that in case of appointment on daily wages the persons who are already working on part-time basis in the department through their respective Employment Exchanges should apply to the Department through proper channel. In the instant case, neither the applicant was initially engaged on part-time basis through her respective Employment Exchange nor she subsequently got her name sponsored through her Employment Exchange for the post of sweeper )Class-IV) category) filled up in the Department on daily wages base at the relevant period of time. The applicant did not also apply for the same at the time of such interview in the Department. Therefore, no accrued right of the applicant has ever been infringed.” 3. We are afraid the stand of the respondents that there is no policy for regularization of part-time Sweeper is not wholly correct. After ten years of part time work, admittedly, there is a policy to convert such a part-time worker as daily wager and after ten years as daily-wager service, the employees are treated as regular employees. Therefore, there will be a direction to second respondent to look into the mater and take appropriate action in the light of the observations contained in the judgement as above, if not already taken within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgement alongwith a copy of writ petition by the petitioner. The consequential benefits, to which the - 3 - petitioner is found eligible, shall be disbursed to him within another two months. 4. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. October 26, 2010. (Justice Kuldip Singh), (Hem/pankaj) Judge.