Point of Law: Regularization has no concern with the conferment of work charge status after lapse of time.

ORDER :

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

(a) That Annexure P-1 may be quashed and set-aside and the respondents may be ordered to grant work charge status to the applicant from the date he completed 8 years of service as per the law laid down in Rakesh Kumar’s case, with all the consequential benefits incidental thereof.

2. The case as set-up by the petitioner is that he was appointed as “beldar” in the Forest Department of Government of Himachal Pradesh w.e.f. 01.01.1995 on daily wage basis. His services were regularized w.e.f. 14.09.2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was entitled for work charge status on completion of 8 years’ continuous service on daily wage basis in terms of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others. Having remained unsuccessful in getting his grievance redressed from the respondents, petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No. 7456 of 2013. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Civil Writ Petition No. 7456 of 2017 in following terms :

“We do not pronounce on the merits of the case of the petitioner or that of the State which opposes the present petition but direct that the second respondent shall consider/determine as to whether the facts in this case are similar or identical to those in Rakesh Kumar’s case supra. The determination shall be by reasoned and speaking order after granting the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and placing on record such other and further material on which he seeks to rely. If on determination, the facts in this case are found to be identical to those in Rakesh Kumar’s case, the petitioner shall be granted the same relief. Such determination shall be done within eight weeks from today. Petition stands disposed of.”

3. In compliance to aforesaid order passed in CWP No. 7456 of 2013, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent No.2 and the representation of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.2 vide office order dated 17.12.2015, Annexure P-1. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by way of instant petition.

4. The contention of petitioner is that he has been wrongly denied the benefit of judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others, on the ground that the Forest Department did not have work charge establishment. As per petitioner, such findings are not tenable in view of the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in State of H.P. and others vs. Ashwani Kumar, CWP No. 3111 of 2016 and also the judgment dated 23.05.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 160 of 2021. Petitioner has also relied upon documents Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-1/A to contend that the stand of the respondents stating unavailability of work charge establishment in Forest Department is incorrect.

5. Respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner. Rejection order dated 17.12.2015, Annexure P-1, has been justified on the ground that there was no work charge establishment in the Respondent-Department. As per respondents, the services of the petitioner were rightly regularized w.e.f. 14.09.2007. It has further been contended on behalf of the respondents that benefits under Annexure P-2 were given to the persons, who were initially engaged in the year 1984. Since the petitioner was engaged during the year 1995, he was not entitled for grant of work charge status.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents available on the file.

7. Admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Beldar on daily wage basis in the Respondent-Department w.e.f. 01.01.1995 and his services were regularized w.e.f. 14.09.2007.

8. The respondents were under direction vide judgment passed in CWP No. 7456 of 2013 to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of