Himachal Pradesh High Court
Gopal Singh vs State Of Hp & Others on 22 August, 2024
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
( 2024:HHC:7742 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .
CWPOA Nos. 7438, 7505, 7509, 7513, 7517, 7518, 7519, 7538, 7574 and 7577 of 2020 Date of decision: 22nd August, 2024.
1. CWPOA No. 7438 of 2020 Gopal Singh ...Petitioner.
Versus State of HP & others ...Respondents.
2. CWPOA No. 7505 of 2020 Chhaju Ram r ...Petitioner.
Versus State of HP & others ...Respondents.
3. CWPOA No. 7509 of 2020 Alam Chand ...Petitioner.
Versus State of HP & others ...Respondents.
4. CWPOA No. 7513 of 2020 Mohinder Singh ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of HP & others ...Respondents.
5. CWPOA No. 7517 of 2020
Tilak Ram ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of HP & others ...Respondents.
6. CWPOA No. 7518 of 2020
Yugal Kishore ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of HP & others ...Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2024 20:33:42 :::CIS
2 CWPOA No.7438 of 2020 with
connected matters
( 2024:HHC:7742 )
7. CWPOA No. 7519 of 2020
Baldev Singh ...Petitioner.
.
Versus
State of HP & others ...Respondents.
8. CWPOA No. 7538 of 2020
Tek Chand Ram ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of HP & others ...Respondents.
9. CWPOA No. 7574 of 2020
Karam Chand ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of HP & others ...Respondents.
10. CWPOA No. 7577 of 2020
Tej Mal ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of HP & others ...Respondents.
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the Petitioner(s). Mr. Kishore Pundeer, Advocate for petitioner(s) in CWPOA Nos. 7438, 7505, 7509, 7513, 7517, 7518, 7519, and 7538 of 2020.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate for petitioners in CWPOA Nos.7574 and 7577 of 2020.
For the Respondents: Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General in all petitions.
::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2024 20:33:42 :::CIS 3 CWPOA No.7438 of 2020 withconnected matters ( 2024:HHC:7742 ) Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge All these petitions, for involvement of issue to be decided on .
the basis of similar facts and common law, are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Petitioners were appointed by the respondents-departments, i.e. HPPWD and IPH, on various dates during the years 1992 to 2002.
Common grievance of the petitioners is that after their initial engagement as daily wagers, they were not permitted to complete 240 days in each calender year in order to deprive them from benefit of regularization after completion of requisite years of service as per Regularization Policy formulated and adopted by the State of HP/Departments from time to time.
3 It is further case of petitioners that after certain period, they were allowed to complete 240 days daily waged service in each calender year and resultantly, regularization of their services was delayed for belated completion of requisite period of prescribed daily waged service with 240 days in each calender year. Some of petitioners are still in service, whereas some of them stood retired on attaining the age of superannuation.
4 Petitions have been repelled by the Departments by filing response with submissions that it was not the Department which gave breaks/artificial breaks to petitioners for depriving them from benefits of regularization policy by not allowing them to complete 240 days in each calender year but it were petitioners who themselves worked intermittently as per their convenience and, therefore, they are not entitled for benefit of ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2024 20:33:42 :::CIS 4 CWPOA No.7438 of 2020 with connected matters ( 2024:HHC:7742 ) service rendered by them for the years in which they did not work for 240 days in each calender year.
.
5 It has also been submitted on behalf of respondents-
Departments that though work charge establishment was available in IPH and PWD Departments earlier but after abolition of work-charge establishment in said Departments, petitioners are not entitled for conferment of work charge status on completion of requisite years but are entitled for regularization only subject to availability of vacancy, on the basis of which they have been regularized from the dates of their respective regularization as per Policy.
6 Though it has been claimed by Departments that petitioners themselves worked intermittently from their initial appointments till the years since when they completed 240 days in each calender year but to substantiate such stand nothing has been placed on record. It is not a case of Departments that no work was available and despite issuing notice or calling upon by the Departments, petitioners did not join their duty as daily wagers. There is nothing on record to indicate that at any point of time, any action was ever taken by Departments against the petitioners asking them to join the duty despite availability of work and funds.
7 Respondents-Departments have not placed on record any material, including Muster Rolls etc. of the relevant period during which, according to Departments, petitioner(s) intermittently absented from the work at their own, to establish their claim that petitioner(s), despite ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2024 20:33:42 :::CIS 5 CWPOA No.7438 of 2020 with connected matters ( 2024:HHC:7742 ) availability of work, did not attend the work. It is not case of the respondents-
Departments that work was not available and, therefore, petitioner(s) were .
not engaged or remained absent, rather it is claim of the Departments that petitioner(s), at their own absented from duty. The said fact could have been established by the Departments by placing on record relevant material, including Muster Roll, indicating absence of the petitioner(s) but availability of work as well as presence of others who were allowed to continue to work during those days.
8 In view of above, stand of Departments that petitioners themselves did not attend the work during initial years of their engagement appears to be an afterthought to justify the artificial breaks given to petitioners to avoid financial liability for which otherwise petitioners would have been entitled for working 240 days in each calender year during their initial years.
9 It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner(s) that issue involved in present case is squarely covered by judgment dated 30 th August, 2017 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 645 of 2011 titled as State of HP vs. Keshav Ram; judgment dated 14th December, 2009 passed in CWP No. 4489 of 2009 titled Ravi Kumar vs. State of HP; judgment dated 10.05.2018 passed in CWP No. 3111 of 2016 titled State of HP vs. Ashwani Kumar and also judgment dated 28.11.2023 passed in CWPOA No. 6089 of 2020 titled Dharam Chand vs. State of HP.
::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2024 20:33:42 :::CIS 6 CWPOA No.7438 of 2020 withconnected matters ( 2024:HHC:7742 ) 10 Upholding the order passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated .
10.5.2018, in CWP No.3111 of 2016, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v.
Ashwani Kumar, has pronounced that work-charged establishment is not a pre-requisite for conferment of work-charged status nor conversion of work-
charged employee into regular employee would make such establishment non-existent.
11 Civil Appeal No.5753 of 2019, preferred by State in Ashwani Kumar's case has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 22.07.2019.
12. It is well settled in various pronouncements of this High Court that for conferring Work Charge status on a daily waged worker on completion of requisite years, existence of work charge establishment in the Department is not necessary.
13 In this regard, it is apt to record that in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316, an affidavit was filed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, formulating a Scheme for granting work-charged status to all daily-waged employees, serving in the State of Himachal Pradesh, in all Departments, irrespective of the fact that Department is/ was having work-charged establishment or not.
14 Term "work-charge" in Himachal Pradesh is used in different context, than work-charge status in other States. A person working on daily-
waged basis, before his regularization, is granted work-charged status on ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2024 20:33:42 :::CIS 7 CWPOA No.7438 of 2020 with connected matters ( 2024:HHC:7742 ) completion of specified number of years as daily-wager and effect thereof is that thereafter non-completion of 240 days in a calendar year would not .
result into his ouster from the service or debar him from getting the benefit of length of service for that particular year. Normally, work-charged status is conferred upon a daily-wager, on accrual of his right for regularization, on completion of prescribed period of service, but non regularization is for want of regular vacancy in the department or for any other just and valid reason.
Therefore, it is a period daily-wage service and regularization, which is interregnum altogether different form the temporary establishment of work-
charge, as discussed in the judgment of the Apex Court relied upon by the State and, for practice in Himachal Pradesh, work-charged status is not conferred upon the person employed in a project but upon such daily-wage workers, who are to be continued after particular length of service for availability of work but without regularization for want of creation of post by Government for his regularization/ regular appointment. Therefore, work is always available in such cases and the charge of a daily-wager is created thereon to avoid his disengagement for reasons upon which a daily-wager can be dispensed with from service.
15. On conferment of work-charged status, sword of disengagement, hanging on the neck of workmen, is removed on completion of specified period of daily-waged service, as thereafter instead of daily-
wage, the employee would get regular pay-scale and would be entitled to ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2024 20:33:42 :::CIS 8 CWPOA No.7438 of 2020 with connected matters ( 2024:HHC:7742 ) other consequential benefits for which a daily-waged employee is not entitled.
.
16. In response to plea that work-charged establishment does not exist in the respondent-Department, learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred pronouncements of this High Court in cases CWPOA No. 5748 of 2019, titled as Man Singh Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, CWPOA No. 52 of 2019, titled Beli Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, CWPOA No. 5566 of 2019, titled as Reema Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others and CWPOA No. 5660 of 2019, titled as Ghanshyam Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, LPA No.151 of 2021, titled State of HP vs. Beli Ram, decided on 09.08.2023, CWPOA No.5554 of 2019, titled Daulat Ram vs. State of HP and others, wherein similar plea of respondent-State did not find favour of the Court.
17 According to pronouncement in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case, clarified in Gauri Dutt and others vs. State of HP reported in Latest HLJ 2008(HP) 366, work charge status was to be conferred irrespective of existence of work charge establishment. The said fact has not been considered in judgment dated 28.07.2010, passed in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 titled as Rakesh Kumar vs. State of HP and others. In fact, in Rakesh Kumar's case, this issue was not adjudicated but without considering Mool Raj's case and without assigning any reason, a passing observation was made. Whereas this issue has been adjudicated and decided in subsequent judgment in Ashwani Kumar's case. Therefore, ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2024 20:33:42 :::CIS 9 CWPOA No.7438 of 2020 with connected matters ( 2024:HHC:7742 ) observations made on this issue in Rakesh Kumar's case are not binding especially when Civil Appeal in Ashwani Kumar's case has been .
dismissed by Supreme Court. Therefore, abolition or non-existence of work-
charge establishment in the respondent-Department has no effect on the rights of petitioner for conferment of work-charged status after completion of 8 years in terms of Policy of the Government as well as verdict of Rakesh Kumar's case.
18 For conferment of work-charged status, work-charged establishment in the Department is not prerequisite. The same has establishment in the Department is not prerequisite. The same has also been affirmed by the Principal Division Bench of this Court in judgment dated 9.8.2023 passed in LPA No. 151 of 2021, titled State of H.P. & another Vs. Beli Ram.
19 The aforesaid principle has also been affirmed in CWPOA No.6710 of 2020, titled as Ram Singh & others vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 08.09.2023; CWPOA No.6614 of 2020, titled as Ram Singh vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 23.11.2023; and CWPOA No.6217 of 2020, titled as Pawan Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others."
20 In similar circumstances, learned Single Judge of this High Court in CWP No.352 of 2019, titled as Keshav Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 1.7.2020, after taking into consideration judgments passed in CWP(T) (CWPOA) No.8145 of 2008, titled as Beli Ram v. State ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2024 20:33:42 :::CIS 10 CWPOA No.7438 of 2020 with connected matters ( 2024:HHC:7742 ) of H.P. and others decided on 02.06.2009; and CWP(T)(CWPOA) No.8143 of 2008, titled as Layak Ram v. State of H.P. and others, decided on .
15.6.2009, has ordered that petitioner therein shall be deemed to have completed 240 days during years 2001 and 2002 also, in which years he was not allowed to complete 240 days, with further direction to regularize the services of the petitioner with all consequential benefits from the date of completion of 8 years service, counting the same from initial date of appointment.
21 Similar directions were passed by learned Single Judge of this High Court vide judgment dated 9.7.2010, passed in CWP(T)(CWPOA) No.5752 of 2008, titled as Keshav Ram v. Secretary IPH & others, directing the respondents-Departments that petitioner shall be deemed in continuous service from the date of his initial engagement after ignoring the fictional breaks given to the petitioner therein from the year 1994, with further observation that the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits of continuous service of period from the date of initial appointment.
22 Judgment passed in CWP(T)(CWPOA) No.5752 of 2008, titled as Keshav Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, was assailed by the State of Himachal Pradesh by filing LPA No.645 of 2011, titled as State of H.P. & others v. Sh. Keshav Ram, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this High Court vide judgment dated 30.8.2017, by considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Abdul Kadir and anr. v. Director General ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2024 20:33:42 :::CIS 11 CWPOA No.7438 of 2020 with connected matters ( 2024:HHC:7742 ) of Police, Assam and others, (2009) 6 SCC 611, with observation which reads as under:-
.
"9. During proceedings of the case, it is also brought to out notice that SLP(C ) bearing No. 21833 of 2010 having been preferred by the respondents against the similar judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP(T) No. 1807 of 2009, titled Satish Kumar vs. State of HP and Ors. and LPS (Civil) No. 20740 of 2008 titled Sarvjeet vs State of HP and Ors, stand dismissed and as such, judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4367 of 2009, wherein directions were issued to respondents to condone the shortage of few days in a particular year while calculating 240 days, has attained finality. Learned Additional Advocate General was not able to dispute the factum as brought to our notice with regard to dismissal of the aforesaid SLP preferred by the respondents-
State.
10. Leaving everything aside, after having carefully perused the impugned judgment, we find that judgment impugned before us is squarely based upon law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Mohd. Abdul Kadir case supra and as such, there is no scope of interference by this Court."
23 In CWP No.4489 of 2009, titled as Ravi Kumar v. State of H.P, decided on 14.12.2009, a similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this High Court.
24 By relying upon Mohd. Abdul Kadir's [(2009)6 SCC 11] Keshav Ram's (CWP No.3111 of 2016) and Ashwani Kumar's cases, similar period of artificial breaks during few years, after initial appointment of ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2024 20:33:42 :::CIS 12 CWPOA No.7438 of 2020 with connected matters ( 2024:HHC:7742 ) the petitioner, was also directed to be condoned by a Division Bench of this High Court in CWPOA 6089 of 2020, titled as Dharam Chand v. H.P. State .
and others, decided on 28.11.2023.
25 After going through the pleadings in the petitions as well as reply(ies) thereto and documents placed on record and also on perusal of judgments, referred supra, it is undisputed that present matters are squarely covered by aforesaid judgments passed in Keshav Ram, Ravi Kumar, Ashwani Kumar and Dharam Chand's cases.
CWPOA No. 7438 of 2020 titled Gopal Singh vs. Sate of HP 26 Petitioner in this petition was engaged as daily waged Beldar on 1.1.1997 in IPH, Sub Division Mandi. After his dis-engagement, he had filed OA (M) No. 306 of 1998 and in furtherance to orders passed therein, the petitioner was re-engaged. Thereafter, petitioner had filed CWP No. 239 of 2011, which was disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner in terms of Rakesh Kumar's case, but representation of petitioner was rejected. Thereafter, petitioner had again approached the Tribunal vide OA(M) No.4696 of 2015 which was disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner the case in terms of Ravi Kumar's case, but said representation has also been rejected.
27 Therefore, petitioner has approached this Court for setting aside the rejection of representations vide Annexures A-6 and A-8 dated 27.6.2015 and 19.8.2016 respectively, with further prayer to direct the respondents to extend the benefits of service from initial engagement after ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2024 20:33:42 :::CIS 13 CWPOA No.7438 of 2020 with connected matters ( 2024:HHC:7742 ) condoning the artificial breaks given to him by conferring regularization/work charge status upon the petitioner along with .
consequential benefits from 01.01.2005.
The mandays chart of petitioner Gopal Singh is as under:-
Years Mandays 1997 148 1998 150 1999 356 2000 353 2001 313 2002 365 2003 365 2004 366 2005 365 CWPOA No. 7509 of 2020 titled Alam Chand vs. Sate of HP 28 Petitioner in this petition was engaged as daily waged Beldar on 1.3.1994 in IPH, Padhar, Mandi Division. He was regularized on 22nd October, 2007 and stands retired on 30th June, 2017.
29 In this petition, petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents to extend the benefits of service from initial engagement after condoning the artificial breaks given to him by conferring regularization/work charge status upon the petitioner along with consequential benefits from 01.03.2002.
The mandays Chart of petitioner Alam Chand is as under:-
Years Mandays 1994 160 1995 182 1996 228 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2024 20:33:42 :::CIS 14 CWPOA No.7438 of 2020 with connected matters ( 2024:HHC:7742 ) 1997 244 1998 352 1999 365 . 2000 364 2001 365 2002 351 2003 365 2004 337 2005 303 2006 365 2007 62
CWPOA No. 7513 of 2020 titled Mohinder Singh vs. Sate of HP 30 Petitioner in this petition was engaged as daily waged Beldar on 6.1.1997 in IPH, Mandi Division. After his dis-engagement, he had filed OA (M) No. 312 of 1998 and in furtherance to orders passed therein, the petitioner was re-engaged. Thereafter, petitioner had filed CWP No. 175 of 2011 which was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner in terms of Rakesh Kumar's case, but representation of petitioner was rejected. Thereafter, petitioner had again approached the Tribunal vide OA(M) No.4988 of 2015, which was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner in terms of Ravi Kumar's case but said representation has also been rejected.
31 Therefore, petitioner has approached this Court for setting aside the rejection of representation vide Annexure A-6 dated 01.10.2016, with further prayer to direct the respondents to extend the benefits of service from initial engagement after condoning the artificial breaks given to him by ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2024 20:33:42 :::CIS 15 CWPOA No.7438 of 2020 with connected matters ( 2024:HHC:7742 ) conferring regularization/work charge status upon the petitioner along with consequential benefits from 06.01.2005.
.
The mandays chart of petitioner Mohinder Singh is as under:-
Years Mandays 1997 172 1998 153 1999 361 2000 363 2001 363 2002 359 2003 365 2004 366 r 2005 365 CWPOA No. 7517 of 2020 titled Tilak Ram vs. Sate of HP 32 Petitioner in this petition was engaged as daily waged Beldar in January 1998 in IPH, Mandi Division. He was regularized on 28th August, 2010.
33 In this petition, petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents to extend the benefits of service from initial engagement after condoning the artificial breaks given to him by conferring regularization/work charge status upon the petitioner along with consequential benefits from 01.01.2006.
The mandays chart of petitioner Tilak Ram is as under:-
Years Mandays
1996 82
1997 75
1998 75
1999 362
::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2024 20:33:42 :::CIS
16 CWPOA No.7438 of 2020 with
connected matters
( 2024:HHC:7742 )
2000 354
2001 358
2002 358
.
2003 365
2004 366
CWPOA No. 7518 of 2020 titled Yugal Kishore vs. Sate of HP 34 Petitioner in this petition was engaged as daily waged Beldar on 1.1.1997 in IPH, Mandi Division. After his dis-engagement, he had filed OA (M) No. 307 of 1998 and in furtherance to orders passed therein, the petitioner was re-engaged. Thereafter, petitioner had again approached the Tribunal vide OA(M) No.4696 of 2015, which was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner in terms of Ravi Kumar's case, but said representation has also been rejected.
35 Therefore, petitioner has approached this Court for setting aside the rejection of representation vide Annexure A-6 dated 19.08.2016 with further prayer to direct the respondents to extend the benefits of service from initial engagement after condoning the artificial breaks given to him by conferring regularization/work charge status upon the petitioner along with consequential benefits from 01.01.2005.
The mandays chart of petitioner Yugal Kishore is as under:-
Years Mandays
1997 146
1998 146
1999 354
2000 354
2001 365
::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2024 20:33:42 :::CIS
17 CWPOA No.7438 of 2020 with
connected matters
( 2024:HHC:7742 )
2002 363
2003 365
2004 366
CWPOA No. 7519 of 2020 titled Baldev Singh vs. Sate of HP .
36 Petitioner in this petition was engaged as daily waged Beldar on 21.05.1995 in IPH, Padhar, Mandi Division. He was regularized on 10th October, 2007 and stands retired on 31 st December, 2016.
37In this petition, petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents to extend the benefits of service from initial engagement after condoning the artificial breaks given to him by conferring regularization/work charge status upon the petitioner along with consequential benefits from 21.05.2003 or 21.06.2003.
The mandays chart of petitioner Baldev Singh is as under:-
Years Mandays
1995 76
1996 181
1997 163
1998 242
1999 307
2001 287
2002 330
2003 363
2004 350
2005 304
2006 329
2007 286
2006 365
::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2024 20:33:42 :::CIS
18 CWPOA No.7438 of 2020 with
connected matters
( 2024:HHC:7742 )
CWPOA No. 7538 of 2020 titled Tek Chand Ram vs. Sate of HP .
38 Petitioner in this petition was engaged as daily waged Beldar on 3rd January, 1995 in IPH, Mandi Division. He was regularized on 14 th June, 2007 and stands retired on 30th November, 2020.
39 In this petition, petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents to extend the benefits of service from initial engagement after condoning the artificial breaks given to him by conferring regularization/work charge status upon the petitioner along with consequential benefits from 03.01.2003.
The mandays chart of petitioner Tek Chand Ram is as under:-
Years Mandays
1995 119
1996 259
1997 351
1998 356
1999 361
2000 362
2001 365
2002 365
2003 365
2004 366
CWPOA No. 7505 of 2020 titled Chhaju Ram vs. Sate of HP 40 Petitioner in this petition was engaged as daily waged Beldar on 11th August, 1992 in IPH, Baggi, Mandi Division. He was regularized on 4th January 2007.
::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2024 20:33:42 :::CIS 19 CWPOA No.7438 of 2020 withconnected matters ( 2024:HHC:7742 ) 41 In this petition, petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents to extend the benefits of service from initial engagement after condoning the .
artificial breaks given to him by conferring regularization/work charge status upon the petitioner along with consequential benefits from 01.01.2001.
The mandays chart of petitioner Chhaju Ram is as under:-
Years Mandays
1992 88
1993 26
1994 27
1995 24
1996 350
r 1997 304.5
1998 363
1999 365
2000 361.5
2001 324
2002 365
2003 321
2004 91
CWPOA No. 7574 of 2020 titled Karam Chand vs. Sate of HP 42 Petitioner in this petition was engaged as daily waged Beldar on 6th May, 1999 in HPPWD Highway Division Jogindernagar. He was regularized on 24th November, 2008 and stands retired in 2020.
43 In this petition, petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents to extend the benefits of service from initial engagement after condoning the artificial breaks given to him by conferring regularization/work charge status upon the petitioner along with consequential benefits from 01.01.2007.
::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2024 20:33:42 :::CIS 20 CWPOA No.7438 of 2020 withconnected matters ( 2024:HHC:7742 ) The mandays chart of petitioner Karam Chand is as under:
Years Mandays
1999 101
.
2000 212
2001 183
2002 194
2003 169
2004 170
2005 160
2006 165
2007 218
2008 355
2009 353
r 2010 311
2011 356
CWPOA No. 7577 of 2020 titled Tej Mal vs. Sate of HP 44 Petitioner in this petition was engaged as daily waged Beldar on 1st August, 2002 in HPPWD National Highway Division Jogindernagar. He was regularized on 18th August, 2012 and also stands retired in this year i.e. 2024.
45 In this petition, petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents to extend the benefits of service from initial engagement after condoning the artificial breaks given to him by conferring regularization/work charge status upon the petitioner along with consequential benefits from 01.01.2011.
The mandays chart of petitioner Tej Mal is as under:-
Years Mandays
2003 95
2004 170
::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2024 20:33:42 :::CIS
21 CWPOA No.7438 of 2020 with
connected matters
( 2024:HHC:7742 )
2005 170
2006 165
2007 228
.
2008 364
2009 358
2010 357
2011 360
46 The artificial breaks given to the petitioner(s) are as under:-
Sr. Name CWPOA Years Days
No Number
.
1 Gopal Singh vs. 7438 of 2020 148
1997
State of HP
1998 150
2 Alam Chand vs. 7509 of 2020 1994 160
State
1995 182
1996 228
3 Mohinder Singh 7513 of 2020 1997 172
vs. State
1998 153
4 Tilak Ram vs. 7517 of 2020 1998 75
State
5 Yugal Kishore 7518 of 2020 1997 146
vs.State
1998 146
6 Baldev Singh vs. 7519 of 2020 1996 76
State
1996 181
1997 163
7 Tek Chand vs 7538 of 2020 1995 119
::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2024 20:33:42 :::CIS
22 CWPOA No.7438 of 2020 with
connected matters
( 2024:HHC:7742 )
State
8 Chhaju Ram vs 7505 of 2020 1992 88
State
.
1993 26
1994 27
1995 24
9 Karam Chand 7574 of 2020 1999 101
vs. State
2000 212
2001 183
2002 166
2003 169
r 2004 168
2005 167
2006 171
2007 208
10 Tej Mal vs. State 7577 of 2020 2003 95
2004 170
2005 170
2006 165
2007 228
47 Undoubtedly, issues involved and pleadings in present matters are
similar to the cases in Keshav Ram, Ashwani Kumar, Dharam Chand and Ravi Kumar's cases, referred supra, therefore, reasoning assigned in those judgments for allowing the petitions, are also applicable mutatis mutandis for all intents and purposes in the present matters, as also submitted and admitted by learned counsel for petitioner(s) and the learned Deputy Advocate General.
::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2024 20:33:42 :::CIS 23 CWPOA No.7438 of 2020 withconnected matters ( 2024:HHC:7742 ) 48 Accordingly, in view of aforesaid discussion, respondents are directed to condone all respective break period of petitioners with effect from their initial appointment till the year they were allowed to complete 240 days in .
each calender year and count their service from the initial date of engagement for continuity in service, seniority and confirming the work charge status/regularization of service from the date of completion of 8 years with effect from their initial appointment along with consequential benefits. The amount, if already paid, shall be adjusted against the arrears payable to petitioner.
Petitions stand disposed of accordingly including all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.
22nd August, 2024. (Ranjan Sharma), (ms) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2024 20:33:42 :::CIS