IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.9265 /2008 Decided on:6.4.2011 _____________________________________________ Smt. Dhanno Devi. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. M.C. Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. for respondents No.1 to 5. None for respondent No.6. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner’s husband was engaged as daily wage Mason in the respondent-Department in the year 1988. He had completed 10 years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year as on 11.12.1998. The Government has accorded sanction for creation of work charged posts of various categories, who had completed ten years or more 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 continuous service with 240/days in each calendar year as on 31.12.1997 for their appointment on work charged and work charged brought on regular cadre basis with effect from 1.1.1998. This letter was received by respondent No.5 through respondent No.4 on 1.7.1999. The name of petitioner’s husband figures at Sr. No.4 of Annexure A-1. The fact of the matter is that respondents have not issued any appointment letter to the husband of the petitioner though he had completed 10 years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year. 2. Case of the respondents, in a nutshell, is that though respondent No.4 had directed respondent No.5 to compete the codal formalities, but since it was a time consuming process, appointment letter could not be issued to the petitioner, who expired on 27.7.1999. In a case of similarly situate person Sh. Punnu, whose name also figures at Sr. No.8 of Annexure A-1, he has been offered appointment on 7.9.1999. The Court is of the considered view that appointment letter was required to be issued to the petitioner’s husband immediately after completing all the codal formalities in sequel to Annexure A-1 within a reasonable period. It has come in the reply that the 3 petitioner’s husband had fallen sick and was not in a position to perform his duties. He expired on 27.7.1999. Petitioner’s husband was to be conferred work charge status immediately after the completion of ten years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year. Petitioner’s husband cannot be faulted with for inaction on the part of the respondents even after the receipt of Annexure A-1 dated 1.7.1999. The respondents could easily complete codal formalities within a reasonable period to confer the work charge status on the petitioner’s husband. 3. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Petitioner’s husband, Amar Chand, shall be deemed to have been conferred with work charge status on the basis of Annexure A-1. Consequential benefits shall be released to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 6.4.2011 *awasthi*