Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA. CWP No : 3042 of 2008. Date of Decision : 13.07.2011. Smt. Samiti Devi …..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? - For the petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. A. K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral): By means of the present petition, the petitioner has sought mainly the following relief:- “That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant to the deceased husband of the petitioner the benefit of ex-post-facto regularization of services and to work out and grant all the monetary benefits including the pensionary benefits as due and admissible in accordance with law to the petitioner.” - 2 - 2. The husband of the petitioner, Sh. Bhandaru Ram was engaged as daily waged Beldar in the year 1991, in the respondent-department. According to the petitioner, her husband worked with the respondent-department regularly and uninterruptedly. Thus, he completed eleven years of daily waged service as Beldar. But he was not regularized and in the meantime he died on 08.11.2001. Therefore, he did not get the service benefits, which otherwise were admissible to a regular Beldar during his life time and after his death no pensionary benefits were given to his widow (petitioner). 3. The respondents admitted in their affidavit-reply that the husband of the petitioner was engaged as daily waged Beldar in the year 1991, he worked continuously upto 07.11.2001 in the respondent-department and completed eleven years as daily waged service with required minimum of 240 days in each calendar year. The date of death is also not disputed. But it is submitted that no post of Beldar was sanctioned during the year 2001 by the Government for - 3 - regularization of daily waged workers who had completed ten years continuous daily waged service. Thus, he could not be regularized. It is also stated that the post was sanctioned by the State Government on 18.02.2008 as per Annexure- “B”, inadvertently and unintentionally, his name could not be considered for regularization alongwith his counterpart daily wagers who were regularized on 01.01.2001. It is submitted that the petitioner never approached the respondent- department for regularization of her deceased husband and granting her pensionary benefits before filing the present petition. Whereas the post of Beldar has been offered to the son of the deceased husband with the consent of the petitioner w.e.f. 16.05.2006 under the Kith and Kin Policy of the Government. 4. Faced with the above situation Sh. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General for the State submitted that the regularization of the husband of the petitioner shall be done by the department in accordance with order dated 18.02.2008 (Annexure-“B”) and the payments of all the - 4 - pensionary benefits shall also be paid in time bound manner to the petitioner-widow in case she would represent to the department. The ld. Counsel for the petitioner agrees to it. 5. In view of this, the petitioner is hereby directed to make a representation to the respondent- department within two weeks alongwith copy of writ and the Annexures appended thereto and also the certified copy of this judgment /order on receiving the representation by respondent No.3, he shall decide the case of the petitioner in view of the aforesaid submissions made in the reply within a period of two months with respect to the regularization of the husband of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2001 and the consequential benefits viz pension etc. flowing from such regularization of said Sh. Bhandaru Ram which shall be paid to the petitioner, failing which the respondents shall pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date it fell due. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. 13th July, 2011. (Surinder Singh), k.sharma Judge. - 5 -