IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 5911 of 2011 & connected matters. Decided on: July 27, 2011. 1. CWP No. 5911 of 2011. Santosh Kumar Versus State of HP & anr. 2. CWP No. 5912 of 2011. Sunil Kumar Versus State of HP & anr. 3. CWP No. 5913 of 2011. Ranjit Singh Versus State of HP & anr. 4. CWP No. 5914 of 2011. Dev Raj Versus State of HP & anr. 5. CWP No. 5915 of 2011. Hukam Singh Versus State of HP & anr. 6. CWP No. 5916 of 2011. Amrati Devi Versus State of HP & anr. 7. CWP No. 5917 of 2011. Prittam Chand Versus State of HP & anr. 8. CWP No. 5918 of 2011. Sanjay Kumar Versus State of HP & anr. 9. CWP No. 5919 of 2011. Jugal Kishor Versus State of HP & anr. 10. CWP No. 5920 of 2011. Subhash Chand Versus State of HP & anr. 11. CWP No. 5921 of 2011. Kamlesh Kumar Versus State of HP & anr. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Sharma, Judge. For the petitioners: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.Bawa, AG, with Mr. J.K.Verma, Dy. AG. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioners in these cases are working as part-time class-IV employees in the Ayurveda Department. They claim regularization in class-IV posts in terms of the R & P Rules in respect of the Ayurveda Department. This Court has considered a similar issue leading to a common judgment dated 21.12.2010 in CWP No. 7896 of 2010 and connected cases. The text of the judgment reads as follows: 2 “The issue raised in these writ petitions pertains to the claim made by the petitioners for regularization in service in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Department of Indian System of Medicine and Homoeopathy, Class IV Karamchari (Non-Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules (First Amendment) Rules, 1998. The petitioners have been originally engaged as part time workers. According to them, they are entitled for regularization in terms of Rule 10 of the Rules. Rule 10 reads as follows: “10. Method of recruitment whether by direct recruitment or by promotion, deputation, transfer and the percentage of vacancies to be filled in by various methods. 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by appointment from amongst the wholly paid daily waged Class-IV workers of the Department who possess at least 10 years service having 240 days in each calendar year, failing which by appointment from amongst the departmental working Part- time workers who also possess at least 10 years service having 240 days in each calendar year, failing which by direct recruitment.” 2. According to the petitioners, they are entitled for regularization in respect of 50% quota of the posts reserved for either the daily waged workers or the part time workers. The contention of the petitioners is that there were no daily waged Class IV workers available in the Department with 10 years service and having 240 days in each calendar year for regularization and hence in respect of the 50% vacancies, the petitioners who have been working as part time workers and who possess 10 years service with 240 days in each calendar year should have been considered, since on the date of the completion of 10 years of service by such part time workers there were no eligible daily wager for regularization. 3. The learned Deputy Advocate General rightly points out that the matter requires factual verification by the competent authority. 3 4. As far as the provision in the Rules is concerned, there is no ambiguity. 50% of the regular posts are reserved for the daily waged workers with 10 years service and having 240 days in each calendar year. In case, there is no such daily wager is available on the date of occurrence of vacancy with the above qualification, then the part time workers with 10 years of service and 240 days in each calendar year if available are to be considered. That alone will serve the object of the Rules. So long as the position in the Rules remains as above, such part time workers have a right to be considered, subject to the preconditions of availability of vacancy in the quota, non-availability of eligible daily wagers and the part timers possessing the eligibility. As far as the regularization of part time employees are concerned, it is to be seen that the Ayurveda and Education Departments are to follow their own policies as available in the prescribed Rules and hence the notification pertaining to other Departments will not apply to the employees in the matter of part time becoming full time daily wager as per the Rules. It is so clarified also in Annexure P-3, Government communication dated 21.5.2004, which reads as follows: “I am directed to refer to your letter No. Ayu. Kha (2)2/2003 dated 28.4.2004 on the subject cited above and to say that Ayurveda Department and Education Department have their own policies relating to Part Time workers hence it has been decided that these departments will not be covered by the instructions issued by this Department on 27.2.2004 regarding conversion of daily wager status, it is therefore requested that further action in the matter may please be taken accordingly at your own level.” 5. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the second respondent/competent authority to look into this aspect, verify the facts and take appropriate action in the light of the Rules, as explained above within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment and a 4 copy of the writ petition by the petitioner concerned before the second respondent/competent authority, so also the pending applications, if any.” 2. The judgment in principle would apply in the case of the petitioners also. 3. Learned Dy. Advocate General, points out that some of the petitioners have been granted daily waged status, without taking note of the statutory provision regarding regularization, subject to availability of vacancy. In case the vacancies were available from the date of conferment of daily waged status, necessarily the judgment as extracted above, should apply to the case of such petitioners. Therefore, it is made clear that the claim of the petitioners for regularization in class-IV posts should be addressed and considered subject to the availability of vacancies and subject to seniority, pay fixation, increments etc. Needful orders in that regard shall be passed within a period of four months from the date of production of the copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the Writ Petition(s) by the petitioners. In the process, in case any of the petitioner is found entitled for retrospective regularization, it is made clear that such petitioner shall be entitled to only notional benefits for the period from that date till today and the actual monetary benefits and for all other purposes they shall be treated as regular with effect from the date when the vacancy was available. 4. The Writ Petitions are disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. July 27, 2011. ( Justice V.K.Sharma), (karan/vs) Judge.