Point of Law : Binding decision should neither be ignored nor be overlooked. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to claim work charge status on completion of 8 years service in terms of pronouncement in Rakesh Kumar’s case and Ashwani Kumar’s case.

ORDER :

Petitioner was engaged daily wages as Electric Beldar in the respondent department, H.P. Public Works Department (PWD), on 1.3.1999 and during that year, he worked for 164 days only. In the year 2000 petitioner worked for 199 days, whereas, in the years 2001 and 2002, he worked only for 81 and 31 days respectively.

2. Petitioner was engaged in Tribal area where instead of 240 days, requirement of 180 working days is mandatory in each calender year for requisite number of years prescribed in the Policies/Schemes for regularization issued by Government of HP from time to time.

3. Engagement of petitioner as an Electric Beldar in the respondent department w.e.f. 1st March, 1999 is an undisputed fact. As per Mandays Chart, produced on record by respondent Department, as Annexure R-2, in the year 1999, petitioner served only for 164 days whereas in the year 2000 he served for 199 days. In the years 2001 and 2002, he served for 81 and 31 days only. Thereafter, according to the respondents, he left the job and was re-engaged on muster roll on 19.2.2015 in terms of award dated 31.10.2014 passed by H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla in Reference No.10 of 2012 (Annexure P-2) whereby respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner in service from the date of termination i.e. 31.1.2002 with seniority and continuity but without back wages.

4. For the aforesaid award, as indicated in the Mandays Chart (Annexure R-2), petitioner was considered in service with minimum 180 required working days since 2002 till his re-engagement in 2015 and as such, in the light of Court orders, he was considered to have completed 8 years upto 31.12.2009 and, thereafter, extending benefits of regularization policy dated 7.5.2010, his service has been regularized, for completion of 8 years, prospectively with cut off date 31.3.2010 and his pay has been fixed on notional basis w.e.f. 1.9.2011 till 17.12.2015 by taking into consideration the date of regularization of his immediate junior Smt. Rama Devi, T-mate and difference of amount on account of his pay fixation has also been paid to him, as evident from office order dated 7.1.2016 in Annexure R-3, by extending actual benefit to him w.e.f. 22.12.2015.

5. Instant petition has been preferred by petitioner seeking direction to respondent department to confer work charge status upon him/regularize his service from the date of completion of 8 years service with all benefits incidental thereto in terms of policy of State and in the light of pronouncements of this High Court vide judgment dated 28th July, 2010 passed in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 titled Rakesh Kumar vs. State of HP and judgment dated 14.12.2009 passed in CWP No. 4489 of 2009 titled Ravi Kumar vs. State of H.P. by claiming that he is entitled for counting his service from the year 1999 and, thus, for conferment of work charge status/regularization on completion of 8 years in the year 2006.

6. Claim of petitioner has been opposed by respondent department on the ground that petitioner did not complete requisite 180 working days in the year 1999 and though, he had completed 180 working days in the year 2000, but, in subsequent years 2000 and 2001, he served only for 81 days and 31 days and thereafter, left the job, and Labour Court has ordered his re-engagement only w.e.f. 31.1.2002 but not from 1999 and therefore, petitioner has no tenable ground for claiming benefit of counting his 8 years service from 1999.

7. It is also contended on behalf of respondent department that work charge status in Public Works Department was abolished on 19.8.2005 whereas conferment of work charge status in term of Rakesh Kumar’s case is available only to those Class-IV workmen who were engaged on daily wage basis and were in continue service w.e.f. 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 and further that as per this judgment after abolition of work charge establishment, after 2005, no work charge status can be conferred upon daily wagers and as in case petitioner who even