The court ruled that employees must be granted work charge status from the date of completion of eight years of service to ensure fairness and prevent discrimination, aligning with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Petitioner, Bihari Lal, and three others have come up before this Court, seeking following reliefs:-

“(i). That the respondents may be ordered to regularize the services of the petitioners/grant work charge status, as per the policy, from the dates they completed eight years, with all benefits incidental thereof.”

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. Precisely, the case as set up, Learned Counsel is that the petitioners were engaged on daily wage basis w.e.f. 01.01.1993 and were granted workcharge status w.e.f. 01.01.2003 in terms of order dated 28.03.2008 [Annexure R-I] on completion of 10 years of continuous service, whereas, the daily wagers who were engaged subsequently on or after 01.01.1994 and had rendered continuous service of 240 days during the year 1994 were granted work charged status on completion of 8 years continuous service w.e.f. 01.01.2002 or during the year 2002.

In these circumstances, the petitioners claim work charge status from the date of completion of eight years of continuous service at par with juniors [engaged in 1994] who were granted work charged status w.e.f. 01.01.2002 or from the date the juniors were granted benefits with all consequential benefits.

STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES:

3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice, on 29.09.2020, the respondents-State Authorities have filed a Reply-Affidavit, dated 23.04.2021, with the stand in Para 1 of Preliminary Submissions that petitioners are not entitled for work charge status on completion of eight years daily wage service. It is averred that the petitioners who were engaged on 01.01.1993 and had rendered continuous service during the year 1993 are to be granted the work charged status from the date of completion of 10 years of continuous daily waged service, which was accorded on 28.03.2008 [Annexure R-I] w.e.f. 1.1.2003 in terms of the judgment in case of Mool Raj Upadhayaya and Gehar Singh and Gauri Dutt. Another plea has been set up that those incumbents who were engaged on daily wage on or after 1.1.1994 are entitled for grant of work charge status on completion of eight years of continuous service as per the judgment in the case Gauri Dutt [i.e. CWP No.778 of 2006] and Rakesh Kumar [i.e. CWP No.2735 of 2010] and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for work charged status/regularized from date of 8 years service.

It is averred that the judgment in case of Jai Singh i.e. CWP No.1044 of 2015, is per-incuriam having no binding effect and it can be treated as a judgment in personam only.

In aforesaid background, the Respondents have prayed for dismissing the writ petition.

REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER

4. Petitioner filed a rejoinder dated 13.03.2022, reiterating that the judgment in case of Jai Singh (supra) has attained finality and it is not a judgment in personam.

4(i). It is contended that the application of two criteria’s overlapped each other, which has resulted in anomalous situation by granting the work charged status from date of completion of 10 years of continuous service for those who were engaged on 01.01.1993 and had rendered continuous service during 1993] whereas the junior daily wagers who were engaged on or after 01.01.1994 and had rendered continuous service of 240 days during 1994 were granted work charged status from the date of completion of after eight years continuous service w.e.f. 01.01.2002 i.e. from an earlier date before the petitioners.

Thus, the action of granting work charged status to petitioners from a subsequent later date [i.e. 01.01.2003] while granting work charged status to the junior incumbents from earlier date [01.01.2002] is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable.

5. Heard Ms. Babita Chauhan, learned vice counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Gobind Korla, Learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondents and have gone through the case records.

ANALYSIS:

6. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the material on record, this Court is of the considered view, that the petitioners her