The High Court · 2010

Coram: The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr.Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. .(cid:133)Respondents. Whether approved for Reporting?1 For the petitioner. : Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): The arguments in this case were concluded on

20.03.2010 and the matter was directed to be disposed of in today(cid:146)s order, however, at the time of dictating the judgment, it transpired that the petitioner has not given the exact date of his engagement in the year, 1992/1993. The matter was listed for speaking to the minutes on 5.4.2010. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties have apprized the Court that exact date of engagement of the petitioner could not be ascertained. However, fact of the matter is that petitioner had completed 240 days in each calendar year from 1993 onwards. According to the petitioner, he was engaged as Mistri in the year, 1987 on daily wage basis and thereafter from 1987 till 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2

1992. However, he did not complete 240 days in each calendar year up to 1992. Thereafter, he was re-engaged in 1993 and completed 240 days in each calendar year for a period of 10 years. The case of petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that though he had completed 10 years(cid:146) continues service with 240 days in each calendar year w.e.f. 1993, however, he has been conferred work charge status on 11.01.2007. The case of the respondent- State, in a nut-shell, is that services of the petitioner could be regularized only as per the scheme framed by the State Government on 6.5.2000. Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that since his client has completed 10 years(cid:146) of service from 1993 onwards with 240 days in each calendar year, he was required to be conferred work charge status immediately after completion of 10 years(cid:146) service as per the law laid down in Mool Raj Upadhyaya versus State of H.P. others, 1994 Supplement (2) Supreme Court Cases 316 Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that the case of petitioner was required to be considered as per the policies framed by the respondent-State in 2000, 2002 and 2006. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. It has been admitted by the respondent-State that the petitioner had been working continuously from 1993 with 240 days in each calendar year and has completed 10 years(cid:146) service on 31.12.2002. Since the petitioner was engaged in 1993 and has completed 10 years(cid:146) service with 240 days in each 3 calendar year on 31.12.2002, his case was required to be considered as per the law laid down in Mool Raj Upadhyaya(cid:146)s case. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has also argued that once the petitioner has accepted the conferment of work charge status w.e.f.