IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 4673/2010 Decided on:31.3.2011 _____________________________________________ Femo Deen. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. and Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No. 1 and 3. Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.2. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis with respondent No.2-corporation as Plant Attendant in the year 1991. He was given artificial/fictional breaks in the year 1997. He raised demand on 30.1.1997. The matter was settled amicably between the management and the petitioner on 17.3.1998 whereby it was agreed upon to grant the petitioner seniority from the date of appointment vide Annexure P-1. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he was not conferred work charge status as per Mool Raj Upadhaya versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316 immediately after the completion of 10 years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year in the year 2001. Precise case of respondent No.2 is that the scheme framed by the State Government was not applicable to the corporation. However, the fact of the matter is that the services of the petitioner were transferred to respondent No.3 on 14.7.2007 and he has been regularized on 1.10.2007. 2. Ms. Archana Dutt has strenuously argued that since her client had completed 10 years’ service with 240 days in each calendar year, he was to be conferred work charge status immediately after the completion of 10 years service as per Mool Raj Upadhaya versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316. 3. According to Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Navin K. Bhardwaj, petitioner could not be conferred work charge status since the scheme framed by the State Government was not applicable to respondent No.2-corporation. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 3 5. Petitioner was engaged on 4.10.1991. He was given artificial breaks, as noticed above and the same, were regularized on the basis of settlement dated 17.3.1998 (Annexure P-1). He has been regularized on 1.10.2007 after his services were transferred from respondent No.2 to respondent No.3 office. 6. The issue raised by respondent No.2-corporation that the scheme called "Scheme for Betterment (Appointment) and Regularization of Muster Roll/Daily Wage Workers in Himachal Pradesh” framed by the respondent-State, is not applicable to respondent No.2, is no more res integra in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP (T) No. 4161 of 2008, decided on 30.3.2009. 7. Ms. Archana Dutt has also brought to the notice of the Court that respondent No.2 had preferred an L.P.A. No. 115/2009against the judgment dated 30.3.2009 and the same has been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 26.10.2010. Thus, there is no manner of doubt that the scheme framed by the State was applicable to the employees of respondent No.2-corporation. Ms. Archana Dutt has also brought to the notice of the Court the instructions issued by the Secretary (Horticulture), on the subject, on 19.3.2009. 4 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status immediately after the completion of 10 years’ service with all the consequential benefits, within a period of 8 weeks, from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 31.3.2011 *awasthi*