Himachal Pradesh Lok Nirman v. Vibhag Majdoor Ekta Union

State of H.P. & others. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J.

1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate. For the petitioners: For the respondents: Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following substantive prayers:

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) That the workmen being represented by the petitioner Union (as in Annexure: P-3) may be granted work charge status immediately on completion of 8 years of service. Respondents may be directed to regularize the workmen represented by the petitioner Union (as per Annexure:P-3) immediately on completion of 8 years of service. That the aforesaid workmen may also be held entitled to all the consequential benefits. That the Clause-2(ii) in Annexure:P-5, which prescribes regularization from prospective date may be quashed and set aside being arbitrary and discriminatory.

In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide para 1 of preliminary submissions and paras 3, 4 and 5 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... on merits: “Preliminary Submissions:

1. That the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner were engaged in the department w.e.f. as per detail attached in (Annexure R-I & R-II) hence they were regularized in accordance with police for the regularization dated 09.06.2006 which provides for regularization of daily wagers had completed 8 years or more continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year subject to availability of sanction post on the basis of seniority. However regularization to be done prospectively i.e. from the date of issuance of order of regularized. The petitioner have been regularized in accordance with the said policy, hence they have no legal and untraceable cause of action to file the present writ petition. On merits:

That the contents of this para are admitted to the extent of judgment in Moolraj Upadhayay's case and Gehar Singh cases are concerned. However, it is submitted that the judgments in these cases were further clarified in by Hon'ble High Court in Gauri Dutt's case which was decided on 29.12.2007, and is being implemented by the respondents since then. The daily wagers are being regularized as per judgment in Gauri Dutt's case which provides that the daily wager who were engaged prior to 01.01.1994 and had rendered one year of continuous service as on 31.12.1993 are be governed by policy for regularization laid down and approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in Moolraj Upadhyay's case and those daily wagers who engaged after 01.01.1994 are to be regularized as per policy dated 06.05.2000 and subsequent policies. Since in the present C.W.P. The petitioners are engaged after 01.01.1994, they have been regularized as per latest policy of the Government which provide for regularization after 8 years of continuous service subject to availability of sanctioned post and seniority and from prospective effect. As per present policy the work charge status has been abolished w.e.f. the year 2004, and the daily wagers are given regular status directly on completion of required years of continuous service. Further it is stated that one Smt. Begma Devi appearing at Sr. No. 4 of the lat page of Annexure is covering Moolraj Upadhayay's case.

that the contents of this para are admitted as per scheme dated 06.05.2010 is concerned and which was later on modified by subsequent policy dated 09.06.2010. However, it is submitted that the Govt. has abolished work charge category since 2004 and are ...3...

giving regular status to the daily wagers after completion of requisite criteria. That the contents of this para are denied and it is submitted that only those daily wagers who were engaged before 31.12.1993 and have completed 10 years of continuous service were regularized retrospectively and Annexure P-7 speaks of creation of posts for those daily wagers. It has further been mentioned in this letter that the daily wagers who were employed during 1993 or subsequently and have not completed 10 years of continuous service shall be governed by policy dated 06.05.2000 as has been led by Hon'ble High Court in judgment titled in CWP No. 987/2001 state of HP v/s Gauri Dutt decided on 29.12.2007.”

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the very out set that the case of the members of the petitioner-Union is covered under judgment dated 28.07.2010, rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others and the connected matters followed by judgment dated 04.05.2011, in CWP No. 2530 of 2011 Raj Bhagti and others vs. State of H.P. & others and the connected matter.

4. In view of the above, if on facts the case of the members of the petitioner-Union, mentioned in Annexure P-3, is covered under the judgments referred to hereinabove in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 and the connected matters and CWP No. 2530 of 2011 and the connected matter and they are also similarly situate as the petitioners in those matters, they shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and benefit of the said judgments, in case the same have attained finality and have been implemented, shall also be extended to them within four months from the date of production of copies of this judgment and the judgments ...4... referred to hereinabove, by the petitioner-Union before the respondents/competent authority after affording an opportunity of being heard to it/its authorized representative, if so desired.