IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 7243 of 2010 Date of Decision : August 11 , 2011 Bilam Singh Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy, Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the respondents-State. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) To quash the notification dated 28.4.2009, Annexure P-1 by issuing the writ of certiorari. (ii) To direct the respondents to continue his engagement on daily wages basis without any break on Muster Roll basis, after July, 2010 when his services were orally and illegally terminated. (iii) Muter Rolls may kindly be issued in his favour and his presence may be marked in the Muster Rolls. (iv) The petitioner may be paid his wages every month. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (v) Directing the respondents not to give any fictional breaks/artificial breaks.” 2. The said notification was subject matter of challenge before the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2719 of 2009, titled as Ram Singh and others versus State of H.P. and others, which stands decided in terms of judgment dated 18.10.2010 wherein the following observations were made:- “Petitioners have been working on daily wage basis for quite some time under the Forest Department. According to them, in view of the notification, dated 28th April, 2009 (Annexure P- 1),their chances for regularization have been marred. 2. Having gone through the reply and after having heard learned Deputy Advocate General, we are afraid that there are no basis for apprehension of the petitioners. It is clearly stated in Annexure P-1 itself that all works of Forest Department should be done on bill basis except where already continuing daily wagers are involved, who are working for last many years and cannot be removed. In such cases, Muster Roll may be issued with the prior approval/authorization of DFO concerned. 3. In reply at paragraph 4, policy has been specifically clarified as follows:- “There is a Policy of regularization of those daily wagers, who have completed 8 years of continuous working period with more than 240 days in each calendar year. It is submitted that the service conditions of daily wagers including the petitioners have not been changed due to the notification dated 28.4.2009. Therefore, the Notification dated 28.4.2009 does not supersede the Policy of regularization.” 4. Still further, at paragraph 7 it is stated that no fictional/artificial breaks were even given to the 3 petitioners. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed as follows. 5. The petitioners, subject to the availability of work, shall be continued as daily wagers in terms of the existing policy which is explained in the reply, on completion of required man days they shall be granted regularization and any other eligible benefits, in terms of the policy. It is made clear that the petitioners shall not be discontinued or disengaged so as to deny them the benefit of 240 days in a year, in case there is work available. Needless also to say that after disengaging them, fresh hands shall not be engaged in their place in case they are willing to do the available work. In case the wages due to any of the petitioners have not been disbursed, the same shall be disbursed within a period of one month from the date of production of the copy of this judgment before the competent authority. 6. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client shall be content if directions issued in para-5 of the judgment rendered in Ram Singh’s case (supra) is also issued in the present case. 4. As such the present petition is disposed of with a direction that the decision rendered in Ram Singh’s case (supra) shall also be applied to the instant case. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 11 , 2011 (PK)