Mohinder Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

V.K. Sharma, J.—The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits at the very outset that the case of the Petitioner is covered under judgment dated 29.07.2010, rendered by this Court in CWP(T) No. 16067 of 2008, titled Sudesh Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, text whereof is as under:

The Petitioner was appointed as a Daily Wage Pump Operator on the establishment of Respondent No. 4, Executive Engineer, I&PH Division, Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh on 28.07.1993. The grievance raised by him in the present petition is that he had completed the requisite continuous service of 8 years, having put in 240 mandays in each year and was thus, as per Government policy, entitled for regularization in the year 2001. However, instead his services were regularized by the Respondents only on 23.12.2006. Thus, in essence, the claim set up by the Petitioner is that he ought to have been regularized retrospectively w.e.f. 2001.

Per contra, according to the Respondents, the Petitioner was not eligible for regularization w.e.f. August, 2001, as per 8 years'' policy, as claimed by him and instead according to this policy, services of those workmen were to be regularized who had completed 8 years of continuous service with minimum 240 days in each year as on 31.12.1999 from the prospective date against the available vacancy. However, the Petitioner had worked only for six years as on 31.11.1999, as would be evident from the mandays chart, placed on record as Annexure R-III.

The Respondents have further relied upon letter dated 17th November, 2006, (Annexure R1) issued by the Principal Secretary (IPH) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh to the Engineer-in-Chief, I&PH Department, Shimla1, on the subject ''Regularization of daily waged/contingent paid workers''. This communication stipulates that the cut of date for the completion of continuous 8 years of service was fixed as 31.3.2004. To the similar effect is the letter dated 01.12.2006 of the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation & PH Department, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, addressed to all the Chief Engineers, except South Zone, Irrigation & PH Department, H.P., captioned as ''Regularization of daily waged/contingent paid workers who have completed 8 years or more services as on 31.3.2004'' brought on record on behalf of the Respondents. In such situation as well, as per mandays chart, Annexure R3, the Petitioner had completed more than 8 years of continuous service, having put in more than 240 mandays in each year as on 31.3.2004. Thus, in any case, even if the version of the Respondents is taken to be on its face value, the Petitioner was entitled for regularization of his services latest by 31.3.2004. However, since it has already been observed that the Petitioner had put in the requisite 8 years of continuous service with 240 mandays in each year by 31st December, 2001, his services were required to be regularized on and w.e.f. 01.01.2002, subject to fulfillment of other conditions, if any, such as availability of post etc.

In view of the above, it is directed that the case of the Petitioner for regularization of his services on and w.e.f. 01.01.2002 shall be considered by the Respondents in accordance with its policy(s) of regularization framed from time to time and prevalent at the material time. However, in case there is any impediment in regularizing the services of the Petitioner in accordance with this judgment for want of availability of a post at the given time, it shall be expedient and in the interest of justice to consider his case for grant of work charge status in accordance with the policy framed by the State Government in this regard as also the pronouncements of law on the subject rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India and this Court from time to time, particularly when as per mandays chart, Annexure R-III, he had continuous service of 13 years with 240 days in each year right from 1994 to 2006.

The above exercise shall be carried out within three months from today, on production of a copy of this judgment to Respondent No. 1 by the Petitioner.

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. In view of disposal of the main appeal, pending CMP(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of as infructuous.

If, on facts, the Petitioner is also a similar situate person, as the Petitioner in the case referred to here-in above, the case of the Petitioner for regularization of his services/work charge status and grant of consequential benefits, if any, shall also be considered by the Respondents in the light of the said judgment, within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment to Respondent No. 1, by the Petitioner.

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. In view of disposal of the main petition, pending CMP(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of as infructuous