Pyare Lal vs State Of H.P. & Others

Satyen Vaidya, J

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

“That the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for bringing his services on regular basis or on daily wage basis from the date of completion of eight/ten years of service rendered on part time basis with all consequential benefits of service.”

The case of the petitioner, as made out from the averments made in the petition and rejoinder submitted on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been working on part time/contingent work basis in Range Office, Patlikuhal, District Kullu, H.P., since January, 2010. As per petitioner, he has continuously rendered service for 240 days in each calendar year after January, 2010 and has become entitled for conferment of daily wage status/ regularization as per the terms of policy of the State Government. Petitioner firstly made a representation to the conservator of Forest, Kullu on 11.4.2017 and thereafter to all the respondents on 2.12.2019, but his grievance allegedly has remained unattended.

In reply, it has been submitted by the respondents that since the petitioner has not completed 240 days in any year since 2010, therefore, he was not entitled to claim regularization. As per respondents, petitioner has been working with the department as per budget available on bill basis in accordance with government instructions, issued vide Notification No.FFE-B-C(1)-35/2009 dated 28.4.2009. The engagement of petitioner has been termed as seasonal. The respondents by way of Annexure R-3 annexed with their reply have given details in order to show that the engagement of petitioner was on bill basis.

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

It is not in dispute that as per the policy of the State Government, a daily wage worker becomes entitled for regularization of service after requisite period, as prescribed under the policy, subject however to the condition that the incumbent should have continuously worked for such requisite period with 240 days in each calendar year. Thus, the ascertainment of fact as to completion of requisite daily wage service is sine-qua-none for eligibility to be considered for regularization.

In the case in hand, the respondents have submitted that the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any calendar year. They have not submitted the mandays charge, showing the engagement of the petitioner per year since 2010. The only material placed on record is the details provided in Annexure R-3, which leads to no conclusion, as from this document, it cannot be inferred that for how many days, the petitioner has worked in a particular year.

As regards the contention of the respondents that the petitioner has been engaged on bill basis will not be the determining factor. In Vikram Singh vs. State of H.P. & others, CWPOA No. 6748 of 2019, decided on 22.7.2022, this Court had examined the implication of payment of hourly basis to a workman vis-à-vis his entitlement for regularization on the basis of his continuous service as daily wager. It has been held that the relevance would be attached to the total working period irrespective of the manner in which the payment was made by the employer.

In light of above discussion, the petition is allowed with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of the policy of the State Government by taking into consideration the entire period after January, 2010 for which the petitioner has worked with the respondents irrespective of the manner in which he was paid. The entire exercise in terms of this order including the passing of final order including the passing of final order shall be completed by respondent No.3 within a period of two months from the date when a copy of this order is submitted before such authority. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.