IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 216 of 2008. [OA No. 76 of 2008] Date of Decision: 31st May, 2010. _______________________________________________________ Shri Girja Nand ….Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. _________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J. (Oral). The Original Application was presented before the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal now which stands abolished. Thereafter, the said O.A. was transferred to this Court and registered as CWP (T) No. 216 of 2008. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. In the instant case, the petitioner was engaged as a daily wage Beldar in the respondent Department w.e.f. 1991 and has completed 240 days in each calendar year except the year 1992 whereby he fell short by three days, but in the year 1993 he completed 245 days. Since then he has been continuously working on daily wages till the filing of the petition. It is contended that the petitioner was neither given work charge status nor was regularized in view of 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - the verdict rendered by the apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1994 SLR 377. 4. In reply, the respondents offered resistance to the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he is not entitled to be granted work-charge-status and also that when he was considered for regularization in the year 2006 when post was made available he declined regularization. Had he accepted it, he would have been retired at the age of 58 years otherwise on attaining the age of 60 years. Therefore, of his own volition he decided to avail two more years on full paid wages. His application and affidavit are appended with the reply as Annexure A-1 and A-II. 5. In rejoinder, the petitioner did not deny these documents but alleged that these were got thumb marked. But the fact remained that the petitioner worked and was paid his full wages beyond two years, i.e., up to the age of 60 years. 6. In Mool Raj Upadhaya’s case (supra), Supreme Court issued the following directions: “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 - 3 - 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 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 regularised in a phased manner on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability including physical fitness. On regularisation 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." 7. There is no denial by the respondents that on 1st January, 1994 the petitioner had not completed 240 days w.e.f. 1991 to 1994 except 237 days in the year 1992, i.e., three days short of 240 days which requires to be condoned in view of the fact that for all other years right from the day he was appointed as a Daily- - 4 - wager the petitioner had worked for 240 days in each calendar months. 8. The work charge status and regularization of a workman are two different situations. The daily wage/muster-roll worker on completion of ten years or more, of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31st December, 1993, as per the Scheme modified by Supreme Court is entitled to be appointed as work-charge employee with effect from 1st January, 1994 and is entitled for the time scale applicable to the corresponding lowest grade in the Government. 9. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Supreme court (supra), In my opinion, only the work charge status can be granted and allowed to the petitioner notionally from the day when he has completed ten years as daily wage worker with all consequential benefits, as permissible under the law, but his prayer for regularization w.e.f. 1.1.2001 is rejected for the reasons aforesaid. 10. The petition stands disposed of, so also all pending application(s), if any. May 31st, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (cm)