Point of Law : Despite having bestowed status of custodian of rights of its citizens, State or its functionaries invariably are adopting exploitative method in the field of public employment to avoid its liabilities, depriving the persons employed from their just claims and benefits by making initial appointments on temporary basis, i.e. contract, adhoc, tenure.

ORDER :

Petitioners were engaged on daily-wage basis as Beldars in the Forest Department in the year, 1992, but they had completed minimum 240 days in each calendar year continuously w.e.f. 1994 and completed eight years daily wage service as such on 31.12.2002. However, they were regularized vide order dated 10.10.2007 on issuance of Policy by the Government of Himachal Pradesh and availability of vacancies.

2. Petitioners, alongwith others had filed CWP No.3056 of 2009, titled as Megh Singh & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Department to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in terms of judgment passed in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P. & Others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316. Claim of the petitioners was rejected in the year 2011 on the ground that petitioners did not complete ten years of requisite continuous daily wage service prior to 31.12.2003, which was precondition for extending benefit in terms of Mool Raj Upadhayaya’s case. Whereupon, petitioners preferred Contempt Petition (COPC No.527 of 2011) which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court passed in CWP No.2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh. For not taking any decision by the respondents, another contempt petition (COPC No.666 of 2015) was preferred by the petitioners which was disposed of with a direction to consider case of the petitioners within a week from the date of passing of the order i.e. 19.11.2015.

3. After taking into consideration clarification received from the Government, it has been concluded by the respondent-Department that Forest Department is not a Work Charge Establishment and, therefore, as observed in Rakesh Kumar’s case, petitioners are not entitled for grant of work charge status in terms of judgment in Rakesh Kumar’s case.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the rejection of their claim, present petition has been preferred.

5. Petition has been opposed by the respondent-Department on the ground that Forest Department is not a Work Charge Establishment and, therefore, petitioners’ claim has been rightly rejected and further that Policies of the State issued from time to time do not provide conferment of work charge status or regularization immediately on completion of requisite years of service prescribed therein, but services of the workmen are regularized or conferred work charge status only on issuance of new Policy with prospective effect, but not on completion of period of service specified in previous Policy. According to respondents, petitioners are working continuously with minimum 240 working days in each calendar year w.e.f. 01.01.1995, but not from 01.01.1994.

6. For substantiating rejection of claim of petitioners for conferring work charge status upon them for want of Work Charge Establishment in Forest Department, respondents have placed reliance on judgment of a Division Bench in CWP No.2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others.

7. In response to plea that work-charged establishment does not exist in the respondent-Department, learned counsel for the petitioner has 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 wherein similar plea of respondent-State did not find favour of the Court. Crux of these pronouncements has been discussed hereinafter.

8. It is undisputed that in Mool Raj Upadhaya Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316, affidavit was filed by Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, formulating