Mitter Dev and Others vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Petitioners claim that they were appointed as daily waged Chainman on 20.07.1992, 01.04.1992, 04.09.1992 and 09.04.1992 respectively at Kangra Division.

The case of the Petitioners, in a nut-shell, is that since they had worked continuously for 10 years and completed more than 240 days in each calendar year w.e.f. 1992, they ought to have been conferred work charge status w.e.f. 2002.

Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that since the Petitioners have already been regularized on 22.12.2007, they cannot seek work charge status from an anterior date

The Respondents have not chosen to file any reply to the present petition.

Since the Petitioners have been engaged before 31st December, 1993, their cases were required to be considered for conferment of work charge status as per the law laid in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P. and Others, and State of H.P. and Others Vs. Gehar Singh,

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Respondents to consider the cases of the Petitioners for conferment of work charge status immediately after completion of ten years continuous service strictly as per the dicta of Mool Raj Upadhyaya�s and Gehar Singh�s case. It shall be open for the Respondents to verify whether the Petitioners had completed 10 years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year for conferment of work charge status. The needful shall be done within a period of ten weeks from today. No costs.