IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 1096 of 2008. Decided on: 14.06.2010. Hem Raj and others. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate vice Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate. For the respondent. : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for the respondents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioners’ father Amar Dev (deceased) (hereinafter referred to as “the workman” for convenience sake) was engaged as Beldar on daily wage basis in the year, 1984. The case of the workman, in a nut-shell, is that he was required to be conferred with work charge status in the year, 1994 after completion of 10 years service as per the law laid down in Mool Raj Upadhyaya versus State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supplement (2) Supreme Court Cases 316. However, he was regularized by the respondent- department on 14.1.1998 as Forest Worker in the pay scale of Rs.770-1860/-. He retired on 31.12.1999. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2. Mr. Umesh Kanwar, learned vice counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that his client was required to be considered for conferment of work charge status immediately after completion of 10 years continuous service in 1994 instead of 14.01.1998. 3. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioner has rightly been regularized w.e.f. 14.01.1998 as Forest Worker. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. The respondent-State has not chosen to file any reply to the present petition. The workman died on 17.07.2008. The legal heirs of the workman moved an application under Rule 13 of the H.P. High Court Original Side Rules, 1997 for bringing them on record. The application was allowed. The L.Rs. were permitted to be brought on record. However, they have confined now their relief for the grant of pensionary benefits only from 1.1.2000 till 17.7.2008. 6. What emerges from the pleadings is that the workman was engaged in the year, 1984. His case was required to be considered for conferment of work charge status in 1994 as per the law laid down in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case. However, he was regularized on 14.1.1998. He retired on 31.12.1999. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: “The respondents are directed to consider the case of the deceased-workman for conferment of work charge status immediately after completion of 10 years continuous service, i.e., 1994 and release the pension to the legal heirs of the workman by counting half of the daily wage service rendered by the workman followed by regular service as per law laid down by this Court in State of H.P. and others versus Sarab Dayal in CWP No. 180 of 2001, decided on 19.7.2007. The needful shall be done within a period of ten weeks from today.” (Rajiv Sharma) Judge June 14, 2010. (bhupender)