IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPs No. 4197, 4180, 4190, 4198, 4206 to 4209, 4212, 4231, 4234 to 4245, 4266, 4267, 4276, 4277, 4279 to 4286 and 4458 of 2011. Decided on: 24th June, 2011. 1. CWP No. 4197 of 2011. Surjit Kumar. vs. State of H.P. & others. 2. CWP No. 4180 of 2011. Nirmala Devi. vs. State of H.P. & others. 3. CWP No. 4190 of 2011. Gulab Singh. vs. State of H.P. & others. 4. CWP No. 4198 of 2011. Tarsem Kumar. vs. State of H.P. & others. 5. CWP No. 4206 of 2011. Rani Devi. vs. State of H.P. & others. 6. CWP No. 4207 of 2011. Narender Singh. vs. State of H.P. & others. 7. CWP No. 4208 of 2011. Ashwani Kumar. vs. State of H.P. & others. 8. CWP No. 4209 of 2011. Lekh Raj. vs. State of H.P. & others. 9. CWP No. 4212 of 2011. Sansar Chand. vs. State of H.P. & others. 10. CWP No. 4231 of 2011. Kashmir Singh. vs. State of H.P. & others. 11 CWP No. 4234 of 2011. Des Raj. vs. State of H.P. & others. 12 CWP No. 4235 of 2011. Bhuri Singh. vs. State of H.P. & others. 13 CWP No. 4236 of 2011. 2 Shukla Devi. vs. State of H.P. & others. 14 CWP No. 4237 of 2011. Preeta Devi. vs. State of H.P. & others. 15 CWP No. 4238 of 2011. Anjana Kumari. vs. State of H.P. & others. 16 CWP No. 4239 of 2011. Janam Chand. vs. State of H.P. & others. 17 CWP No. 4240 of 2011. Ramesh Singh. vs. State of H.P. & others. 18 CWP No. 4241 of 2011. Kusam Lata. vs. State of H.P. & others. 19 CWP No. 4242 of 2011. Sunil Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others. 20 CWP No. 4243 of 2011. Kamam Singh. vs. State of H.P. & others. 21 CWP No. 4244 of 2011. Sansar Chand. vs. State of H.P. & others. 22 CWP No. 4245 of 2011. Radhey Shayam. vs. State of H.P. & others. 23 CWP No. 4266 of 2011. Salochana Devi. vs. State of H.P. & others. 24 CWP No. 4267 of 2011. Gurdas Ram. vs. State of H.P. & others. 25 CWP No. 4276 of 2011. Shanti Devi. vs. State of H.P. & others. 26 CWP No. 4277 of 2011. Shreedhar. vs. State of H.P. & others. 27 CWP No. 4279 of 2011. Sita Ram. vs. State of H.P. & others. 3 28 CWP No. 4280 of 2011. Sanjeev Kumar. vs. State of H.P. & others. 29 CWP No. 4281 of 2011. Krishan Singh. vs. State of H.P. & others. 30 CWP No. 4282 of 2011. Baldev Singh. vs. State of H.P. & others. 31 CWP No. 4283 of 2011. Deep Kumar. vs. State of H.P. & others. 32 CWP No. 4284 of 2011. Surjit Singh. vs. State of H.P. & others. 33 CWP No. 4285 of 2011. Savitri Devi. vs. State of H.P. & others. 34 CWP No. 4286 of 2011. Ramesh Singh. vs. State of H.P. & others. 35 CWP No. 4458 of 2011. Anil Kumar. vs. State of H.P. & others. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioners have been working as part time/daily waged sweepers/workers in the Ayurveda Department. According to them, the Recruitment and Promotion Rules in the Ayurveda Department provides for regularization of part time workers subject to availability of vacancies. They do 4 not have to wait for 10 years to be first conferred with daily waged status and then after eight years to be regularized, as in the other Departments. This issue in principle had been considered by this Court in the common judgment dated 21st December, 2010 in CWP No. 7896 of 2010 and connected matters titled as Jai Singh versus State of H.P. and others. The text of the judgment reads as follows: “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 5 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. 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.” 6 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 copy of the writ petition by the petitioner concerned before the second respondent/competent authority, so also the pending applications, if any.” 2. The petitioners claim that they are also similarly situated. If that be so, similar treatment shall be extended to the petitioners herein also. The needful shall be done within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner concerned. 3. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 24th June, 2011. (Justice V.K. Sharma), (tr) Judge.