Point of Law: Labour Law – Claiming benefits - Petitioners can only be denied the interest on eligible benefits and not benefits as such, which accrued on them as per policy and under which policy, department was bound to confer status, subject to workmen satisfying required conditions.

JUDGMENT :

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following reliefs:-

“i) That the respondent department may kindly be directed to grant work charge status/Regularization (In terms of Jai Singh as well as Chuni Lal Case) to the applicant w.e.f. 1.1.2000 with all consequential benefits and arrear may kindly be ordered to be released in favour of applicant in a time bound manner along with 12% interest per annum.

ii) That the respondents department may kindly be directed to re-fix the pay of the applicant w.e.f. 1.1.2000 and arrear be released in favour of the applicant in time bound manner along with 12% interest.”

2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was engaged as daily waged ‘beldar’ in the Irrigation and Public Health Department in the year 1991 and thereafter completed 240 days of service in each calendar year with effect from 01.01.1992.

3. The services of the petitioner were initially regularized vide order dated 04.01.2007 and subsequently with effect from 01.01.2002.

4. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that as on the date of consideration of the case of the petitioner, the policy of regularization contemplated completion of 8 years of daily waged service as against the period of 10 years when a formal policy was formulated and, therefore, his services were required to be regularized immediately on completion of 8 years service and not 10 years, as has been done by the respondents.

5. The claim of the petitioner has been opposed by the respondents on the ground that this Court in CWP No. 778 of 2006 titled ‘Gauri Dutt vs. State of H.P.’ decided on 29.12.2007, has categorically held that a workman is entitled to work charge status after completion of 10 years of service.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

7. It would be noticed from the reply filed by the respondents themselves that initially a period of 10 years of daily waged service was envisaged and provided for granting work charge status/regularization in terms of the policy of the Government as affirmed with certain modifications in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316.

8. However, thereafter the Government itself relaxed the policy and issued a policy for such daily waged workers, who had worked continuously for 9 years with minimum of 240 days in each calendar year on 01.04.1998. The Government further liberalized the policy for regularization of services of daily waged workers, who continuously worked for 8 years as on 31.03.1999 with 240 days in each calendar year. This is so stated and acknowledged by the respondents in para-2 of the reply which reads as under:-

“2…..It is submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered its judgment in Mool Raj Upadhayaya’s case, wherein it held that the daily waged workers who have worked continuously for 10 or more years with minimum of 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.12.1993, they shall be granted work charge status immediately w.e.f. 01.01.1994. It further held that where a daily waged worker has not completed 10 years of continuous service as on 31-12-1993 shall be granted work charge status as and when they complete 10 years of continuous service with minimum of 240 days in each calendar year. Subsequently, the Govt. relaxed the policy and framed and issued a policy for such daily waged workers who have worked continuously for 9 years with minimum of 240 days in each calendar year as on 01.04.1998. The Govt. later on further liberalized the policy for regularization of services of daily waged workers who worked continuously for 8 years as on 31.03.1999 with 240 days in each calendar year. This policy provided for regularization of daily waged workers from prospective effect i.e. w.e.f. the date of issuance of regularization order after completing all the codal formalities…..”

9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had completed 240 days of his service in each calenda