Point of Law : 39. Every action of the State or its instrumentalities should neither be suggestive of discrimination, nor even apparently give an impression of bias, favouritism and nepotism.

ORDER :

By way of instant petition, the petitioners have prayed for following substantive reliefs:­

“(I) Issue a writ on Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to grant the work charge status after completion of eight years of regular daily wage service i.e. 1.1.2005 and regularized the service of petitioners with all consequential benefits.

(II) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to regularise the service of petitioners after completion of eight years of regular daily wage service by observing the petitioner permanently in the department or in the project as done in the past.”

2. The case as pleaded by the petitioners is that they were engaged on daily wage basis as Class­IV employees in the Integrated Watershed Development Project, Kandi (Hills) (for short “IWD Project”) in the year 1996. The project was part and parcel of the forest department. In the year 2005, IWD Project came to an end and a new project namely Mid Himalayan Watershed Development Project (for short “Mid Himalayan Project”) was started by the forest department. The services of the petitioners were continued in Mid Himalayan Project also.

3. As per petitioners, some of the employees of the IWD Project were adjusted in various departments of the State Government and others including the petitioners were taken in the Mid Himalayan Project. Both the projects were funded by the forest department.

4. Petitioners completed 240 days in each calendar year w.e.f. 1997 and became entitled for conferment of work charge status after completion of eight years of continuous service on daily wages.

5. Petitioners further alleged that persons similarly situated to the petitioners in the above noted projects were regularized by respondent department/project authority by adopting pick and choose policy. Some of the persons were adjusted in Horticulture Department and others namely S/Sh. Shayam Lal, Yog Raj, Ram Krishan, Ram Lal, Devender Singh and Liyakat Ali etc., all Class IV employees were regularised either in the government departments or in the project itself. Petitioners also claimed regularization in parity with other projects such as Him Urja Project, Indo Germin Changer Project, Palmpur etc.,

6. Grievance of the petitioners is that despite having continued for more than 16 years on daily wage basis neither work charge status was conferred upon them nor regularized. The inaction of respondents has been assailed as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners claimed the work charge status as also regularization on the premise of legitimate expectations. Their further grievance is that similarly situated persons have been granted the benefit of regularization, whereas petitioners have been left out.

7. Respondents have contested the claim of the petitioners. It is submitted that the projects were functioning with the financial aid of the World Bank in which the share of the government was 20% only. Such projects were functioning under a society registered under the name and style of Himachal Pradesh Natural Resources Management Society. The forest department is only a nodal agency, whereas Animal Husbandry Department, Horticulture, Agricultural and Rural Development Departments of the State were the line departments. It has further been submitted that there was provision in the Project Implementation Plan for deployment of regular staff from department of forest and line departments and also to engage staff on contract basis. There were no posts of daily wagers, however, depending upon requirement and there past performance, the intake of daily wagers of earlier project had been preferred in pursuance to a decision of the Executive Committee of the Society. Broadly, the claim of the petitioners has been contested on the ground that the petitioners were employees under a specific project and as such they cannot claim either the work charge status o