IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2709 of 2008 Date of decision: 8.3.2010 Inder Singh & Ors …..Petitioners. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioners : Mr. A.K.Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General with Mrs. Shubh Mahajan,Dy.Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge(Oral) The learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his reliefs in the petition to the effect that respondents may be directed to grant the benefit of work-charge status to all the petitioners except petitioners No.2,4 from the date they have completed 10 years of service with all consequential benefits such as pay fixation, seniority and arrears of pay. The learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that petitioners No.2,4 were engaged in the year 1994, their cases are separate and therefore he has not pressed petition on behalf of petitioners No.2,4. 2. The brief facts as per petitioners are that they were engaged as beldars in the Horticulture Department. The petitioners have given their dates of engagement and regularization in the memo Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the JudgmentYes? …2… of parties. The better course was that such particulars should have been given in the main body of the petition, however, such particulars of the petitioners are as follows:- Sr. No. Petitioner Date of engagement Date of regularization 1. Inder Singh 1.1.1986 December,1996 2. Naresh Kumar 2/1994 6.12.2006 3. Jagar Singh 1.1.1992 7.12.2006 4. Gurnam Singh 27.4.1994 in the year 2007 5. Jalam Singh Feb.1983 June, 2000 6. Mansa Ram Feb. 1983 January,1998 7. Durga Singh Nov.1983 January, 1998 8. Dev Dutt 2.11.1984 January, 2007 9. Sarup Singh Sept.1983 January,2007 10. Rattan Lal 15.9.1982 1.1.1998 11. Surat Ram 26.5.1979 1.1.1996 12. Dhani Ram 1.5.1983 30.12.1997 13. Lal Bahadur 1.4.1980 July, 1997 14. Fanthu Ram 1.4.1973 January, 1996 3. The further case of the petitioners is that as per Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316, the petitioners were entitled to work-charge status from the dates they had completed 10 years of service. They were not given the work-charge status, instead they were regularized much later on. The petitioners have suffered in the matter of seniority, promotion, pay fixation and pension etc. It has been submitted that except petitioners No.2,4 all petitioners are entitled to work charge status on completion of 10 years service with 240 days in each calendar year even though such petitioners have been regularized. Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra) is applicable to all the departments. 4. It has been pleaded that after the judgment rendered in Gauri Dutt & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. Latest H.L.J. 2008(1 ) 366, …3… there is no confusion that the benefit of work-charged status does not confine to employees of HPPWD and IPH departments only. It has been submitted that as per Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra) all daily wage workmen who had completed 10 years of service upto 31.12.1993 would be given the work-charge status w.e.f. 1.1.1994 and those who shall complete 10 years of service thereafter would be brought on work charge establishment from the date they complete 10 years of service. 5. The respondents have filed reply and have submitted that the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh had initially framed the policy for regularization of daily paid labourers circulated on 11.7.1995. As per said policy the daily wage workers in all the departments (other then Public Works and Irrigation and Public Health Department/ Boards/ Corporation/Universities etc.) who had completed 10 years or more continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.3.1995 shall be regularized w.e.f. 1.4.1995 only up to the number of posts available in the respective organization. 6. In continuation to the aforesaid policy certain instructions for regularization of daily wage workers were issued by the State government from time to time. The latest instructions were issued on 9.9.2008. The petitioners stand already regularized with the respondents department. The work charge status is not applicable to the respondents department as per the policy in vogue and therefore work charge status cannot be granted to the petitioners contrary to the policies. …4… 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the present case is squarely covered by judgments dated 21.12.2009 passed in CWP No.1653 of 2008 and CWP No.2127 of 2008. Mr. P.M. Negi learned Dy. Advocate General has stated that to the extent now reliefs confined by learned counsel for the petitioners, the present case is covered by judgment dated 21.12.2009 passed in CWP No.1653 of 2008 and judgment dated 21.12.2009 passed in CWP No.2127 of 2008. Therefore taking into consideration fair statement made by learned Dy. Advocate General it is not necessary to go into rival issues raised in the petition and reply 8. In view of judgment dated 21.12.2009 in CWP No.1653 of 2008 and judgment dated 21.12.2009 in CWP No.2127 of 2008, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to give notionally work-charge status to the petitioners except petitioners No.2,4 from the dates they are entitled to work-charge status as per Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra) with all actual consequential service benefits permissible in law and such decision be taken within a reasonable time. The petition stands disposed of with above directions. No costs. March 8, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (sks) Judge.