IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 1520 of 2011-B with CWP Nos.10015 of 2011-B, 10016 of 2011-B, 10017 of 2011-B, 10018 of 2011-B, 10019 of 2011-B, 10020 of 2011-B, 10021 of 2011-C, 10022 of 2011-C, 10023 of 2011-C, 10024 of 2011-C, 10025 of 2011-C and 10026 of 2011-C Date of Decision: 01.12.2011 CWP No. 1520 of 2011-B Roshan Lal and Ors ……. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors. …….. Respondents CWP No.10015 of 2011-B Kirpa Ram ……. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors. …….. Respondents CWP No.10016 of 2011-B Raj Rani ……. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors. …….. Respondents CWP No.10017 of 2011-B Sunita Devi ……. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors. …….. Respondents CWP No.10018 of 2011-B Surinder Paul ……. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors. …….. Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CWP No. 10019 of 2011-B Dal Bahadur ……. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors. …….. Respondents CWP No.10020 of 2011-B Sudershan Singh ……. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors. …….. Respondents CWP No.10021of 2011-C Suresh Kumar ……. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors. …….. Respondents CWP No.10022 of 2011-C Sudershan Kumar ……. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors. …….. Respondents 2 CWP No.10023 of 2011-C Anil Kumar ……. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors. …….. Respondents CWP No.10024of 2011-C Nand Kishore ……. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors. …….. Respondents CWP No.10025 of 2011-C Maan Singh ……. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another …….. Respondents CWP No.10026 of 2011-C Ran Singh ……. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors. …….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioners : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma and Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Additional Advocate General. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioners were engaged in different capacities by the respondents over different period of time. Details of each petitioner is specifically mentioned in Para-2 of CWP No.1520 of 2011. According to the petitioners, even after completion of 10 years of their continuous service, to the satisfaction of their employer, they have not been accorded daily waged status, in accordance with the policy/regulations/rules framed by the respondents even though Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 3 person junior to them, i.e. Mast Ram who was initially appointed as a water carrier on 18th May, 1999 stands regularized vide order dated 25.9.2010 (Annexure P-3). Also in cases of Smt. Bala, Sh. Prem Kumar and Sh. Sushil Kumar, persons similarly situated to that of the petitioners, who had approached this Court, vide judgment dated 21.12.2010, this Court in CWP (T) No.8967 of 2008 titled Smt. Bala and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Others issued following directions:- “3. In view of the above, it is manifest that the petitioners were initially engaged as part time Sweepers on 29.03.96, 10.08.96 and 17.01.94 respectively. Admittedly, as per the policy of the State Government a part time worker is vested with the status of a contingent/whole time worker after completion of 10 years of service and thereafter after putting in further service of 8 years is entitled for regularization. In the present case, the petitioners had completed the requisite 10 years service as part time Sweepers on 28.03.2006, 09.08.2006 and 16.01.2004, respectively. Thus, they were entitled for grant of status of daily wage Sweeper on and with effect from 30.03.2006, 11.08.2006 and 18.01.2004, respectively. However, they have not been vested with such status. 4. In view of the above, the petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider the cases of the petitioners for grant of status of contingent/whole time Sweeper w.e.f. 30.3.2006, 11.08.2006 and 18.01.2004, respectively, along with consequential benefits, within a period of three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by 4 the petitioners, failing which interest @ 9% per annum shall follow. 5. The petition, so also the pending CMP(s), if any stand disposed of in the above terms.” 2. In the reply, respondents have admitted to the extent that as per policy/instructions of the Government, a part time employee is to be converted into a daily waged employee after completion of 10 years of continuous service, who after completion of 8 years of continuous service on daily wages would be regularized thereafter. 3. I find that petitioners have been working to the satisfaction of the respondents since the year 1991 onwards. All of them have completed 10 years of service. As such, petitions need to be allowed with directions to the respondents to consider the petitioners’ case for grant of status of whole time daily wagers from the dates when they are otherwise found to be eligible in accordance with the policy framed by the Government. All consequential benefits due and admissible, in accordance with law, shall follow. 4. It is further clarified that if the respondents feel that benefit was wrongly accorded to Mast Ram, it shall be open for them to take recourse to all remedial measures, in accordance with law. However, if ultimately it is found that benefits accorded to Mast Ram in terms of Annexure P-3 are in accordance with law and petitioners who are senior to him are otherwise entitled for 5 regularization, same benefits shall also be accorded to them. Nonetheless, petitioners’ case for according daily wager status/ regularization has to be considered, in accordance with the regulation policy decision and rules framed from time to time. 4. With the aforesaid observations, present petitions stand disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. 1st December, 2011 k.sharma