IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos. 3549, 3550 and 3551 of 2009. Decided on: September 21, 2011. 1. CWP 3549/2009 Todar Mal v. State of H.P. & Others. 2. CWP 3550/2009 Suresh Kumar v. State of H.P.& others 3. CWP 3551/2009 Durga Singh v. State of H.P. & others Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. A.G. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) These three writ petitions, whose titles and particulars find mention in the title of this judgment, are being disposed of by a common judgment, as similar questions of law and facts are raised therein. Petitioners in all the three writ petitions were appointed to work in a Government Guest House, known as Bushahar Sadan, at Rampur, in the year 1994. Todar Mal, petitioner in CWP No. 3549/2009 was appointed as Chowkidar-cum-Cook, on monthly wages of Rs.1200/-, while Durga Singh, petitioner in CWP 3551 /2009 and Suresh Kumar, petitioner in CWP 3550 /2009, were appointed as Caretaker and Sweeper, respectively, on payment of monthly wages @ `600/-. Wages of all the three petitioners were increased from time to Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - time. Todar Mal, according to his petition, had been drawing monthly wages of ` 3860/-, when the petition was filed, while petitioner Suresh Kumar was drawing ` 2950/- per month. Third petitioner, namely, Durga Singh, had also been drawing ` 2950 per month. 2. All the three petitioners, having worked continuously and uninterruptedly since 1994, sought regularization of their services. A reference was made by Deputy Commissioner, Shimla (on whose orders petitioners had been appointed by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Rampur Bushahar) to Divisional Commissioner, Shimla on 8.4.2005, copy Annexure P-3 in CWP No. 3549/2009, recommending regularization of services of all the three petitioners, stating therein that all of them had been working continuously and without any interruption, since 1994. It appears that Divisional Commissioner forwarded the aforesaid communication dated 8.4.2005, Annexure P-3, to the Government and the Government, vide letter dated 21.8.2007, copy Annexure P-8, wrote to the Divisional Commissioner that the matter needed to be dealt with at his own level. The Divisional Commissioner then informed the Deputy Commissioner, vide endorsement (in hand), appearing below Annexure P-8, that matter was required to be dealt with at his own level. Deputy Commissioner made a back reference to the Divisional Commissioner on 8.10.2007, copy Annexure P-10, that technically the matter was not covered by the Policy, circulated by the Government vide letter dated 18.6.2007, but the petitioners had completed 13 years of continuous service and they deserved to be - 3 - regularized. So, he requested the Commissioner to take up the matter with the Government, for considering the case of the petitioners and to accord sanction to regularize them, by liberalizing the regularization policy. Ever since the matter has been pending with the government. Petitioners have filed the present writ petitions, seeking issuance of writ of mandamus to the respondents, to regularize their services, on completion of eight years of service by them, in accordance with the policy of the government. They have placed reliance on the government policy, circulated vide letter dated 8.6.2006, copy Annexure P-4. 3. Respondents, in their reply, do not deny the fact that the petitioners were engaged in the year 1994, as claimed by them, nor do they controvert the averment that petitioners have been working continuously, since 1994. It has been stated that the matter is pending with the government, for decision. It is also their case that the petitioners are not covered by the policy of regularization, formulated by the government. Also, it is stated that the petitioners are not being paid from government fund, but from Small Saving Price Money and earning from the Guest House, in which they are posted. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as also learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the record. 5. Petitioners have relied upon the Policy of the Government regarding Regularization of Daily Waged and Contingent Paid Workers. This Policy was issued on 8.6.2006 and its copy is Annexure P-4. Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, on whose instructions the petitioners were appointed, himself, in - 4 - his reference dated 11.7.2007, which he made to the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, wrote that the cases of the petitioners were covered under the Policy, Annexure P-4, though he wrote the date of this Annexure P-4 to be 9.6.2006, which is actually 8.6.2006. Number of the policy communication is, however, the same, as written in Annexure P-4. 6. Now, when the Deputy Commissioner, who is impleaded as respondent No. 3 in these writ petitions, himself wrote to the Commissioner that the cases of the petitioners were covered by the policy Annexure P-4, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to say that cases of the petitioners are not covered by the policy, Annexure P-4. 7. Not only that respondent No. 3, in his reference Annexure P-7, wrote that the cases of the petitioners were covered by the policy, Annexure P-4, but the Government, while making reference dated 21.8.2007, copy Annexure P-8, to the Divisional Commissioner, also wrote that action was required to be taken, at the level of the Divisional Commissioner himself. The government, in the aforesaid letter Annexure P-8, did not say that the matter was not covered by the regularization policy. 8. No doubt, the Deputy Commissioner, in response to a letter dated 23.8.2007, copy Annexure P-9, received by him wrote back to Divisional Commissioner, vide letter dated 8.10.2007, copy Annexure P-10, that the case of the petitioners was not covered by the government policy, formulated vide letter dated 18.6.2007, but no policy, formulated vide letter dated 18.6.2007, is there on record. As noticed hereinabove, - 5 - earlier Deputy Commissioner himself had written that the cases of the petitioners were covered by the policy, dated 8.6.2006, copy Annexure P-4 and, therefore, it cannot be said that petitioners’ cases are not covered by the government policy for Regularization of the services of Daily waged/Contingent Paid Workers. 9. In view of the above stated position, all the three writ petitions are disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners, in accordance with the policy dated 8.6.2006, Annexure P-4, from due date and to give them all monetary benefits. However, arrears, on account of monetary benefits, shall be restricted to three years period immediately preceding the date of institution of the petitions and not for the period, beyond three years. 10. This judgment be placed on the file of Todar Mal and its authenticated copies on the remaining two petitions. Petitions are disposed of. September 21, 2011(PC) (Surjit Singh ), J.