Point of Law: Labour Law - Workmen - Right of regularization/work-charge status of a Daily-Wage Worker - Employee shall be entitled for benefits of subsequent policy, if it is not taking away benefits of earlier policy and is more beneficial to concerned employee.

JUDGMENT :

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.

1. Petitioner Nandini Thakur alias Nandi Thakur has approached this Court for quashing impugned Office Order dated 25.10.2012 (Annexure P-6), passed by Superintending Engineer, IPH Circle, Kullu (HP) (respondent No. 2), whereby benefit of regularization, extended to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.2002, as per Policy of State, on completion of eight years continuous service with 240 days in each Calendar Year, has been withdrawn and her date of regularization as Complaint Attendant has been modified as 30.12.2006, i.e. from the date of appointment/regularization of similarly situate persons junior to her.

2. For the purpose of adjudication of present case, Policy formulated by the respondents-State and approved by the Supreme Court of India in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P. and Others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316 further explained in Gauri Dutt and Others vs. State of H.P. Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366 and Regularization Policy framed and circulated by the respondents-State in the year 2000, shall be relevant.

3. Policy approved by the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case reads as under:

“4. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we modify the said scheme by substituting paragraphs 1 to 4 of the same by the following paragraphs:

“(1) Daily-wage/muster-roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled, who have completed 10 years or more of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31-12-1993, shall be appointed as work-charged employees with effect from 1-1-1994 and shall be put in the time-scale of pay applicable to the corresponding lowest grade in the government.

(2) Daily-wage/muster-roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled, who have not completed 10 years of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31-12-1993, shall be appointed as work-charged employees with effect from the date they complete the said period of 10 years of service and on such appointment they shall be put in the time-scale of pay applicable to the lowest grade in the government.

(3) Daily-wage/muster-roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled who have not completed 10 years of service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31-12-1993, shall be paid daily wages at the rates prescribed by the government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time for daily-wage employees falling in Class III and Class IV till they are appointed as work-charged employees in accordance with paragraph 2.

(4) Daily-wage/muster-roll workers shall be regularised in a phased manner on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability including physical fitness. On regularisation they shall be put in the minimum of the time-scale payable to the corresponding lowest grade applicable to the government and would be entitled to all other benefits available to regular government servants of the corresponding grade.”

4. Right of regularization/work-charge status of a Daily-Wage Worker, where the worker/employee has rendered service, on daily-wage basis, on different posts in lower and higher grades, has been explained in Gauri Dutt’s case, as under:

“18. The last question raises some interesting points. There have been instances where some employee has worked as beldar for some time and thereafter he has been engaged in a higher scale as mate or supervisor etc. The Tribunal in most of these cases has directed that the employee should be granted work charge status in the higher post on completion of 10 years of service after combining the service rendered in the lower scale and the higher scale. The State is aggrieved by these directions. According to the learned Advocate General the State has offered work charge status to these employees on completion of 10 years of combined service in the lower of the two scales and the State cannot be directed to grant work charge status in the higher scale. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the employees that since the employees are already working in