IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos. 1125, 1154, 1157, 1202, 1205, 1206, 1220, 1235 and 1338 of 2006 Date of decision: 7.1.2008 1. CWP No. 1125 of 2006 State of H.P. and others ..Petitioners Versus Puran Singh ..Respondent 2. CWP No. 1154 of 2006 State of H.P. and others ..Petitioners Versus Gurdas Ram ..Respondent 3. CWP No. 1157 of 2006 State of H.P. and others ..Petitioners Versus Vijay Gupta ..Respondent 4. CWP No. 1202 of 2006 State of H.P. and others ..Petitioners Versus Lekh Raj ..Respondent 5. CWP No. 1205 of 2006 State of H.P. and others ..Petitioners 2 Versus Imal Raj ..Respondent 6. CWP No. 1206 of 2006 State of H.P. and others ..Petitioners Versus Pancham Katosh ..Respondent 7. CWP No. 1220 of 2006 State of H.P. and others ..Petitioners Versus Babu Ram ..Respondent 8. CWP No. 1235 of 2006 State of H.P. and others ..Petitioners Versus Ashwani Kumar ..Respondent 9. CWP No. 1238 of 2006 State of H.P. and others ..Petitioners Versus Joginder Pal ..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. 3 The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. R.M.Bisht, Deputy Advocate General, for the petitioners Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Advocate, in CWP No. 1235 of 2006 Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) In all these cases we are concerned with employees who had joined as daily waged workers on or after Ist January, 1994 or had not completed 240 days of service in a calendar year as on 31st December, 1993. In CWP No. 778 of 2006 we had framed questions No. 1 & 2 as follows:- “1. Whether the scheme of putting the workers on work charged basis as approved by the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case is applicable to those daily waged employees who had not completed minimum of 240 days of service in a calendar year as on 31st December, 1993 ? 2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, what will be the process of regularization of services of those employees who had not completed 240 days of service in a calendar year as on 31st December, 1993 or had joined service after Ist January, 1994 ?” In answer to these questions we had specifically held that those employees who had not even completed one year of service as on 31.12.1993 or had 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 4 joined thereafter, were not entitled to the benefit of the scheme, as approved in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case and we had held as follows:- “This scheme does not apply to those employees who had not completed even one year of service as on 31.12.1993 or who were employed thereafter. The first question is answered accordingly. Under para 4 of the scheme the State was under an obligation to regularize all daily waged/muster roll workers whether they had joined prior to 31.12.1993 or thereafter. The State has framed a scheme in this behalf on 6th May, 2000. In our opinion those employees who are not governed by the direction given in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case as set out by us above, shall be governed by the scheme of 2000. The second question is answered accordingly.” In view of the above settled position of law, the orders of the learned Tribunal directing that the employees be granted work charged status on completion of 10 years of continuous service are patently illegal. The orders of the learned Tribunal are set aside and it is directed that the employees shall be considered for regularization/being placed on work charged basis in accordance with the policy of 2000. 5 All the writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. January 7, 2008(K) ( V. K. Ahuja ), J.