Regularization of daily wagers cannot be denied on grounds of artificial breaks in service, as prior rulings establish entitlements based on completed service duration, irrespective of work charge establishment status.

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

1. All these petitions, for involvement of issue to be decided on the basis of similar facts and common law, are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Petitioners were appointed by the respondents-departments, i.e. HPPWD and IPH, on various dates during the years 1991 to 1999. Common grievance of the petitioners is that after their initial engagement as daily wagers, they were not permitted to complete 240 days in each calendar year in order to deprive them from benefit of regularization after completion of requisite years of service as per Regularization Policy formulated and adopted by the State of HP/Departments from time to time.

3. It is further case of petitioners that after certain period, they were allowed to complete 240 days daily waged service in each calendar year and resultantly, regularization of their services was delayed for belated completion of requisite period of prescribed daily waged service with 240 days in each calendar year. Some of petitioners are still in service, whereas some of them stood retired on attaining the age of superannuation.

4. Petitions have been repelled by the Departments by filing response with submissions that it was not the Department which gave breaks/artificial breaks to petitioners for depriving them from benefits of regularization policy by not allowing them to complete 240 days in each calendar year but it were petitioners who themselves worked intermittently as per their convenience and, therefore, they are not entitled for benefit of service rendered by them for the years in which they did not work for 240 days in each calendar year.

5. It has also been submitted on behalf of respondents-Departments that though work charge establishment was available in IPH and PWD Departments earlier but after abolition of work-charge establishment in said Departments, petitioners are not entitled for conferment of work charge status on completion of requisite years but are entitled for regularization only subject to availability of vacancy, on the basis of which they have been regularized from the dates of their respective regularization as per Policy.

6. Though it has been claimed by Departments that petitioners themselves worked intermittently from their initial appointments till the years since when they completed 240 days in each calendar year but to substantiate such stand nothing has been placed on record. It is not a case of Departments that no work was available and despite issuing notice or calling upon by the Departments, petitioners did not join their duty as daily wagers. There is nothing on record to indicate that at any point of time, any action was ever taken by Departments against the petitioners asking them to join the duty despite availability of work and funds.

7. Respondents-Departments have not placed on record any material, including Muster Rolls etc. of the relevant period during which, according to Departments, petitioner(s) intermittently absented from the work at their own, to establish their claim that petitioner(s), despite availability of work, did not attend the work. It is not case of the respondents-Departments that work was not available and, therefore, petitioner(s) were not engaged or remained absent, rather it is claim of the Departments that petitioner(s), at their own absented from duty. The said fact could have been established by th