Bachiter Singh vs State Of H.P. & Ors

Satyen Vaidya, J

By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:-

“i). That a writ in thenature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 23.01.2012 and the documents submitted with Annexure P-4 and count the mandays/work performed under watershed committees at the desire of the superiors (order annexed) for the year 2005, 2006, 2007, which will make the things clear that the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year and the regularization has wrongly been delayed.

ii). That a writ in the nature of Mandamus may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to regularize the services/grant work charged status to the petitioner on the post of Beldar from the due date i.e. 01.04.2008/2009 with all consequential benefits like arrears of salary, seniority etc., along with interest @9% p.a. and the erring officials may be held guilt, who have forced the petitioner for unnecessary litigation.

iii) That the seniority of the petitioner may not be changed due to the incorporation/decision of the respondents contained in Annexure P-5 for giving regularization to the workmen, who were engaged on compassionate ground on daily wage basis & have enhanced their qualification, the Annexure P-5 may be quashed.”

The controversy in the instant petition is in very narrow compass. The admitted case of the respondents is that the petitioner worked as daily wager Beldar for 240 days in each calendar year w.e.f. 2001 to 2004 and thereafter 2008 to 2016. The respondents regularized the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 03.07.2017. As per the respondents, during years 2005, 2006 and 2007, the petitioner had not completed 240 days in any of these calendar years and rather had worked for 81, 182 and 216 days respectively in said years.

On the other hand, the petitioner has submitted that during the years 2005, 2006 and 2007, in addition to mandays provided by him to the respondents, he had worked in various water shed projects undertaken by the Forest Division, Nurpur, District Kangra and by counting the mandays provided by him by working in different water shed programmes, the mark of 240 days in each calendar year is clearly achieved.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully.

The respondents have relied upon a mandays chart in respect of the petitioner as Annexure R-2 filed with their reply. Except for the calendar years 2005, 2006 and 2007, the petitioner is shown to have completed more than 240 days in each calendar year from 2001 to 2016. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, the petitioner is shown to have worked for 81, 182 and 216 days respectively.

Petitioner has placed on record various documents which reveal that during year 2005, 2006 and 2007, he had worked under the Water Shed Programmes at Dholpur, Bhatoli, Pey Moch and Bhojpur under the Nurpur Forest Division, District Kangra. H.P. The documents on which reliance has been placed have been issued by the Secretaries of the respective Water Shed Committees and have also been countersigned by their respective Chairmen. By taking mandays provided by the petitioner to the various water shed projects during years 2005 to 2007 and by adding them to the mandays provided by the respondents as per Annexure R-2 for the said years, the total mandays in each calendar years 2005 to 2007 exceeds 240 days. Following tabulated information will clarify the factual position:-

Years

Water  shed committee Dholpur

Water shed committee at Bhatoli

Water Shed committee at Pey Moch

Water shed committee, Bhojpur

Mandays as per Annexure R-2

Total Mandays

2005

15

18

145

83

81

342

2006

36

Nil

52

45

182

315

2007

63

Nil

51

Nil

216

330

Noticeably, with respect to specific averments made by the petitioner in the petition, regarding services rendered by him under various water shed projects during the years 2005 to 2007, the reply of the respondents is conspicuously silent. They have harped only on one aspect that the petitioner had not completed 240 days in calendar years 2005 to 2007.

As a matter of fact, the petitioner had earlier also approached this Court by way of CWP No. 8320 of 2010. The said petition was disposed of by this Court on 01.08.2011 by granting liberty to the petitioner to make representation to respondent No.1, which was to be considered and decided sympathetically by said respondent by looking to the regularization policy more particularly mandays chart.

In compliance, the petitioner had submitted detailed representation dated 23.01.2012 and had provided the details of the work done by him in water shed projects during the years 2005, 2006 and 2007, but the same remained undecided forcing the petitioner to approach this Court after about eight month of submission of representation.

The respondents have admitted that as per the regularization policy dated 28.08.2009 the daily wage workers who had completed 8 years of continuous service with minimum 240 days in a calendar year as on 31.03.2009, were eligible for regularization against vacant posts.

The respondents have not denied that the water shed projects, in which the petitioner had worked during the years 2005 to 2007, were being executed under the Nurpur Forest Division of the State Government. The petitioner has duly established that he had worked in above noted water shed projects during the calendar years 2005 to 2007 in addition to the work rendered by him with the 3rd respondent. Since, water shed projects were executed by the 3rd respondent, to carve out distinction between the work rendered by the petitioner in water shed projects or with the 3rd respondent will be meaningless. It can be noticed that in some other cases, the services rendered by the daily wage workers with water shed projects have been considered and counted towards their continuous daily wage services culminating in benefit of regularization under the regularization policy of the State. The facts of one such case are available in the judgment passed by this Court on 06.01.2022, CWPOA No. 3562 of 2019, titled as Sant Ram & Anr. vs. State of H.P. & Ors., which has been affirmed in LPA No. 153 of 2023 by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court and further by the Hon’ble Supreme Court also.

In the facts as noticed above, it is unfair, harsh and arbitrary on the part of the respondents in not providing credit of mandays rendered by the petitioners in the water shed projects during the years 2005 to 2007. Notwithstanding, the fact that funds for water shed projects, to some extent were provided by the World Bank, the said projects were executed only for discharge of governmental functions.

In light of above discussion, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for regularization on completion of eight years starting from 2001 with all consequential benefits. The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondents within eight weeks from the date of passing of this judgment. Petition is accordingly disposed of, so also, the pending applications, if any.