IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7608 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.10.2011 Sher Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Additional Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J 1. By means of this petition filed by the workman, he has prayed that his case for grant of work charge status/regularization be considered by counting his entire services rendered from the year 1998 onwards and not w.e.f. the year 2002 only. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner was engaged as Beldar in the Forest Division, Karsog in the year 1998. His services were orally terminated on 1.6.1999. It is not disputed that by that date the workman had completed more than 240 days in every calendar year. The workman, therefore, approached the learned erstwhile H.P. 2 State Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 2523 of 1999 and this petition was allowed on 24th July, 2001 and the order of his termination was set aside. Though back wages were denied to the workman, it was held by the Tribunal that the period between his disengagement and re-engagement shall be counted towards his seniority. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the State filed CWP No. 414 of 2003, which was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 16th July, 2008. Though this Court held that the Tribunal did not have a jurisdiction to decide the matter since the dispute covered under the Industrial Disputes Act, we felt that it was not a fit case where we should exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since this Court is not only a Court of law but also a Court of equity. This Court had further directed that in case the respondent-employee has been re-engaged and is continuing in service till date, his services shall not be dispensed with and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Since the petitioner admittedly has been re-engaged in the 2001, this writ petition was deemed to have been dismissed, meaning thereby that the petitioner 3 was entitled to grant of seniority as per the orders of the Tribunal. 4. Shri Vivek Singh Thakur, learned Additional General, relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan and others vs. Daya Lal and others, (2011)2 Supreme Court Cases 429, wherein the Apex Court in para 12(ii) observed as follows:- “12(ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be “litigious employment”. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularization, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularization in the absence of a legal right.” 5. In my opinion these observations are not at all applicable to the present case for two reasons. Firstly, in the present case the earlier lis between the parties has come to an end and by the order of this Court the writ petition filed by the State has been deemed to be dismissed. Secondly, what was contemplated by the Apex court while making observations quoted hereinabove, is that if a person 4 during the course of litigation is granted some interim orders and later his petition is dismissed, he on the basis of such interim order cannot be absorbed in service. 6. Here the case is entirely different because the litigation ended in favour of the employee and he is in service not by virtue of an interim order but by virtue of final order passed by this Court. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent-State is directed to treat the employee in service right from the day when he initially joined as Beldar and his case for grant of work charge status/regularization shall be considered as per the existing policy by counting his service right from the year 1998. The needful shall be done latest by 31st March, 2012 and in case the petitioner is entitled to grant of work charge status/regularization then the monetary claims of the petitioner shall be paid latest by 31st May, 2012. In case the monetary benefits are not paid by the said date the State shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from date of regularization/grant of work charge status till payment of the amount. No costs. October 15, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) (vt) Judge