IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 6143 of 2008 Date of decision: 12.11.2010 _________________________________________________________ Bhagat Ram. .....Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. R.D. Kaundal, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. V.K. Sharma, J (Oral). The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs vide para 7(a) and (b): “7(a) That the respondents may be directed to comply with the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Mool Raj Upadhya vrs. State of Himachal Pradesh” and issue regularisation orders of the daily wage service of the applicant on the post of Junior Draughtsman (Civil) in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2130 revised to Rs. 4020-6000 with effect from 1-1-1997 to 30-91997 and to release payment of consequent arrears of pay within a period of two months. 7(b) That the respondents may be directed to pay interest @ 18% on the due, admissible & legal payment of the applicant from 1-1-1997 to 30-91997 and upto date, because they have acted in a most arbitrary, illegal manner and regularised the daily wage service of his juniors as mentioned in Para-6 herein above but unlawfully denied the same relief to the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ...2... applicant, despite making repeated oral requests and submitting representations dated 2-2-1999 and reminder dated 2-7-1999, all sent to them under Registered Post.” 2. The claim is opposed by the respondents on the following averments set up vide para 5(v) in the reply: “5(v) The contents of this para are matter of record. However, it is admitted that as per the policy of the Government framed in term of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mool Raj Upadhaya v/s State of HP, the case of the daily rated workmen who had completed 10 years services as on 31.12.94 was accordingly processed by the E.E. through proper channel for verifying the facts and sanction of the Govt. Before the case was sent and processed, the applicant left the job of the respondent department, as such, the question of regularising the services of the workmen who are no more in the employment of department does not arise. Since the applicant had abandoned the employment of the respondent department at his own for getting better employment in HPPWD Department, hence a workmen who is no more in the employment of the respondent department can not be offered employment on regular basis. The person who remained in continuous service of the respondent department have been regularised by the respondent department but the person i.e. applicant who abandoned the job has not been regularised from the retrospective effect as he is no more in the employment of respondent department. The policy framed by the Govt. is only for these daily rated workmen who are still in continuous services of the respondent department. 3. On a bare perusal of the records, it is manifest that the petitioner had joined the respondent department as Junior Draftsman on daily wages on 13.03.1987. He continued as such up to 30.09.1997. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter he was selected as a regular Draftsman and joined as such on 01.10.1997. Thus, the claim of the petitioner is restricted for the period during ...3... which he worked as Junior Draftsman on daily wages with the respondent department from 13.3.1987 to 30.9.1997. Indisputably, during this period, which is more than 10 years, he had put in 240 mandays in each year and was thus entitled to grant of status of a work charged Junior Draftsman in terms of the settled legal position enunciated by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P. And others, 1994 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 316. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the requisite period of 10 years of daily wage service was completed in this case on 31st December, 1996. Thereafter, the petitioner continued with the respondent department only up to 30.09.1997, i.e., for nine months. Thus, his claim shall be restricted only to this period. 4. In view of the above, the petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to grant the status of work charged Junior Draftsman to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1997 and to pay the consequential benefits accruing to him up to 30.09.1997 within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment alongwith interest @ 6% per annum, failing which higher interest @ 12% per annum shall be payable. 5. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 12th November, 2010 (virender)