IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 8932 of 2008, Reserved on: 5.6.2009. Decided on: _19.6. 2009. Ram Lal. .… … … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and Others. … … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?.1 For the petitioners: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that petitioner was appointed as Beldar on 28.5.1989. The petitioner was granted work charge status vide letter dated 23.7.1999 after completion of requisite years of service. However, the same was withdrawn vide impugned order dated 29.10.2001. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate has strenuously argued that the issuance of letter dated 29.10.2001 is in violation of the principles of Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. - 2 - natural justice. He then contended that the petitioner was required to complete only eight years of service as per Annexure A-3, dated 8.7.1999. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that since the petitioner had not completed nine years of service as on 31.12.1997, he could not be granted the work charge status. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. A bare perusal of man-days chart annexed with the reply filed by the respondent-State reveals that the petitioner was engaged as Beldar in the year 1989. The State Government had issued Notification dated 8.7.1999. It is clearly stipulated therein that Daily Waged/Contingent Paid workers who have completed eight years of continuous service (with minimum of 240 days in a calendar year) on 31.3.1999 shall be considered for regularization. The petitioner was granted regular/work- charge status on the basis of letter dated 23.7.1999 w.e.f. 1.4.1998. A bare perusal of Annexure A-3, dated 8.7.1999 reveals that the petitioner was required to put in eight years of service not nine years of service for regularization, as stipulated in impugned letter dated 29.10.2001. The respondents have placed on record the man-days chart of the petitioner, vide Annexure R-3. The petitioner had completed eight years with 240 days in each calendar year w.e.f. 1989 to 1997. In these circumstances, the petitioner had been rightly given the work-charge status on the basis of letter dated 23.7.1999. The respondents have not taken into consideration Annexure A-3, dated 8.7.1999 while withdrawing the earlier letter dated 23.7.1999. The learned Tribunal had granted the - 3 - interim relief to the petitioner, on the basis of which he has been continuing till date. Since the petitioner had completed eight years of service with 240 days in each calendar year, he has been rightly regularized as per letter dated 23.7.1999. The petitioner was required to be heard before the issuance of letter dated 29.10.2001. The letter dated 29.10.2001 has visited the petitioner with civil consequences. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The letter dated 29.10.2001 issued qua the petitioner is quashed and set aside. It is declared that the petitioner was rightly regularized/given the work-charge status w.e.f. 1.4.1998. No costs. June 19, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma) (rkv). Judge. - 4 -