Point of Law : It stands duly established on record that from date of her initial appointment petitioner has been working on daily wage basis, there is/was no requirement if any for respondents to first convert her services from part time to daily wage so as to make her entitled for claiming benefit of regularization in terms of policy of regularization framed by Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time

ORDER :

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

“a) That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the applicant after completion of 6 or 8 years as per policy of the state or if no policy is there, then to direct the respondents to formulate a policy being a model state; so the constitutional mandates provided for the welfare state be fulfilled and justice be done.

b) that the respondents may kindly be directed not to give breaks to the applicant and allow him to work throughout the year.

c) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant consequential benefits such as seniority, arrears etc. and the original application may kindly be allowed with cost.”

2. The petitioner had originally filed O.A. No. 477 of 2016 before the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in the year 2016 and after the abolition of the Tribunal, the Original Application of the petitioner was transferred to this Court and the same was registered as CWPOA No. 6748 of 2019.

3. The case of petitioner is that he was engaged as daily wage labourer/Contract beldar in the year 2001 in Community Fruit Processing-cum-Training Centre, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. He has rendered continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year from the date of his engagement till the date of filing of the petition. The respondents had regular work in Community Fruit Processing-cum-Training Centre, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. and petitioner has been assigned multiple works from time to time viz preparation of pickles, jams, jelly etc, to impart training to local residents, to clean and maintain the premises, attend counter sales, gardening work and duty as watchman. The working hours have been from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.

4. Petitioner has sought relief of regularization as per the regularization policy of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner along with his co-workers Ms. Asha Devi had represented to respondent No.2 on 23.12.2015. The grievance of the petitioner has not been redressed till date.

5. Respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he was engaged on hourly basis w.e.f. 19.3.2001 and he had been paid for the work performed by him on hourly basis. Petitioner was not entitled to regularization, as his engagement was not on Muster Roll basis. The regularization policy would not be applicable in the case of petitioner, who was engaged on hourly basis. It has also been submitted that the number of hours for which petitioner has worked were converted into number of days by the Incharge, Community Fruit Processing-cum-Training Centre, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. unauthorizedly and had thus issued mandays chart annexed by the petitioner as Annexure A-1.

6. I have heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Bhatti, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents and have also gone through the record carefully.

7. The fact that the petitioner has been engaged since 2001 by the respondents at Community Fruit Processing-cum- Training Centre, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. has not been denied by respondents. There is no denial to the contents of mandays reflected in Annexure A-1. The only contention of respondents is that the petitioner was engaged on hourly basis and not on daily basis. This distinction is clearly superfluous. Respondents with their reply have annexed the documents, reflecting working hours of the petitioner. As per these documents, petitioner has been rendering service for seven hours every day and his employment was continuous. In these circumstances, the conversion of hours into days cannot be said to be unjustified or illegal.

8. The mandays chart Annexure A-1 annexed with the petition reveals that from 2006 onwards till 2015, petitioner had worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year. Petitioner has also placed reliance on a document annexed as Annexure ‘A’, issued by the Incharge, Community Fruit