IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 4 of 2011. Date of decision: 13.06.2011. _______________________________________________________ Jag Mohan Singh. ….. Petitioner. Versus The H.P. State Electricity ….Respondents. Board & Ors. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has prayed a direction to the respondents to grant him work charged status from 01.01.1997 with all benefits incidental thereof such as full back wages, seniority and pay fixation. 2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner was engaged as daily waged T.Mate/Beldar in the year 1985. The petitioner had completed 240 days since 1987 in each calendar year and has rendered 10 years of continuous service up to 31.12.1996. He was due for work charged status with effect from 01.01.1997 in accordance with the Mool Raj Upadhyaya versus State of H.P. and Others 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316. It has been stated that instead of giving work charged status to the petitioner with effect from due date, he has been granted work charged status with effect from 18.12.1998 which is in violation of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra). Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 3. The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had approached erstwhile Tribunal by filing original application No. 165 which was ordered to be treated as representation. However, the Board rejected the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 30th May, 2006. Hence, this petition. 4. The respondents have filed reply and have stated that the petitioner was engaged as ‘Beldar’ on daily wage basis with effect from 21.08.1981 and not from the year 1985 but he had not completed 10 years of service with 240 days in each calendar year till November, 1986. The petitioner completed 10 years continuous service as on 31.12.1997. The Board has rightly considered the matter of bringing the petitioner on work charged establishment with effect from 12.06.1998 as per policy after due process. It has been submitted by the respondents that representation ordered by the Tribunal was considered and was rightly rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even as per the stand of the respondents, the petitioner had been working continuously since November, 1986 onwards and he had completed 10 years of continuous service as on 31.12.1997. It has been submitted that as per Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra), the petitioner is entitled to work charged status with effect from 01.01.1997. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has been rightly given work charged status with effect from 12.06.1998 and the representation of the petitioner has been rightly rejected. 3 6. The Annexure RA-II is the detail of presence/absence of the petitioner and it is up to 15th September, 1995. The perusal of the Annexure RA-II indicates that the petitioner had completed 240 days in each calendar year starting from 16.11.1986 to 15.09.1995. It is not the stand of the respondents that after 15.09.1995, the petitioner had not completed 240 days in each calendar year for completing 10 years of continuous service with effect from 16.11.1986. The respondents have not placed corroborative material on record to show that the petitioner had completed 10 years continuous service on 31.12.1997. Thus, on the basis of the material on record, it can be safely inferred that petitioner had completed 10 years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year at least up to 31.12.1996. 7. In Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra), the Supreme Court has held as follows:- “4. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we modify the said scheme by substituting paragraphs 1 to 4 of the same by the following paragraphs: “(1) Daily-wage/muster –roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled, who have completed 10 years or more of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31-12-1993, shall be appointed as work-charged employees with effect from 1-1-1994 and shall be put in the time-scale of pay applicable to the corresponding lowest grade in the Government; (2) daily-wage/muster-roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled, who have not completed 10 years of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31-12-1993, shall be appointed as 4 work-charged employees with effect from the date they complete the said period of 10 years of service and on such appointment they shall be put in the time-scale of pay applicable to the lowest grade in the Government; (3) daily-wage/muster-roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled who have not completed 10 years of service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31-12- 1993, shall be paid daily wages at the rates prescribed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time for daily-wage employees falling in Class III and Class IV till they are appointed as work-charged employees in accordance with paragraph 2; (4) daily-wage/muster-roll workers shall be regularized in a phased manner on the basis of seniority- cum-suitability including physical fitness. On regularization they shall be put in the minimum of the time-scale payable to the corresponding lowest grade applicable to the Government and would be entitled to all other benefits available to regular government servants of the corresponding grade.” 8. The case of the petitioner is covered under Para-4(2) above for giving him work charged status. In view of facts which have come on record, the petitioner is entitled to work charged status with effect 01.01.1997 with all consequential benefits such as seniority and pay fixation. The Board has not properly considered the representation of the petitioner while rejecting the representation of petitioner on 30th May, 2006 and, therefore, order dated 30th May, 2006 is liable to be quashed. 9. In view of above, the order dated 30th May, 2006 is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for work charged status in the light of observations made 5 above within a period of six weeks from the date of supply of copy of this judgment by the petitioner to the competent authority and within the same period, the respondents shall also give the petitioner consequential benefits of seniority and pay fixation. The petition stands disposed of. June 13, 2011. (Kuldip Singh), ( krt) Judge.