Point of Law : Law of Limitation, is not applicable, however principle of delay and laches is attracted for adjudication of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner may be ousted for delay and laches in appropriate case.

ORDER :

Petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.05.2016 passed by respondent No.3-Superintending Engineer, whereby his claim for regularization/work charge status, after completion of eight years of service as a Work Inspector in Irrigation and Public Health Department ( in short ‘IPH’), has been rejected. It is claim of the petitioner that persons junior to him have already been regularized after completion of eight years of continuous daily wage service.

2. Petitioner was engaged as a daily wage beldar w.e.f. 05.02.1994 and worked as daily wager Work Inspector w.e.f. 17.03.1994 in IPH Department. Therefore, he continuously served by completing 240 working days in each calendar year and completed 8 years in the year 2001. His services were regularized on 27.12.2006 as Work Inspector.

3. After regularization, petitioner filed CWP No.787 of 2009, titled as Chuni Lal & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, which was disposed of on 18.05.2010 with a direction to respondents to consider case of the petitioner in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P. & Others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316. However, case of the petitioner was not considered for regularization/grant of work charge status. Whereupon, petitioner again approached the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No.2097 of 2015, which was disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, in terms of law laid down by this Court in CWP No.2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others.

4. For omission to consider the case of the petitioner, he preferred Execution Petition No. 54 of 2017, titled as Chuni Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, wherein respondent-Department justified non grant of work charge status/ regularization in terms of Rakesh Kumar’s case for want of existence of Work Charge Establishment in the Department to Class-III category to which petitioner belongs, whereupon, the said execution was withdrawn and present petition has been preferred.

5. Claim of the petitioner has been opposed by the respondent-Department on the ground that petitioner has been regularized vide order dated 27.11.2006 as Work Inspector as per Regularization Policy dated 09.06.2006 with prospective effect from the date of joining, and the petitioner accepted offer of regularization without any protest and joined on 28.12.2006 and, filed Original Application No.2097 of 2015 i.e. present case but after lapse of nine years seeking parity in terms of verdict in Rakesh Kumar’s case, for granting work charge status after completion of eight years of daily wage service and the case of the petitioner was considered in terms of Rakesh Kumar’s case and as Work Charge Establishment for Class-III category was abolished in the Department on 19.06.2001 i.e. before completion of eight years of service by the petitioner, therefore, petitioner was not considered to be entitled for work charge status on completion of eight years, and further that regularization, in terms of Policy of the Government, is permissible only against vacant post and as and when vacant post was available and Policy was issued by the Government, petitioner had been regularized with prospective date.

6. Respondent-Department has relied upon pronouncement of Division Bench in CWP No.2735 of 2010, Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and also of the Single Bench in CWP No.4589 of 2012, titled as Vinay Kumar vs. State of H.P., decided on 27.10.2014 for justifying rejection of claim of the petitioner to confer work charge status for abolition of Work Charge Establishment in the Department.

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