The court ruled that a petitioner, employed as a daily wage worker, is entitled to regularization from an earlier date despite a shortfall of service days caused by health issues, emphasizing the Department's obligation to implement regularization policies.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“i) The respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the applicant w.e.f. 01.01.2000 instead of June, 2017 by taking into account the service rendered by the applicant on daily wages basis w.e.f. 01.01.1990 onwards with minimum 240 days in each calendar year;

ii) The respondents be further directed to pay to the applicant all consequential benefits arisen out of grant of benefit of regularization w.e.f. 01.01.2000. The arrears of pay and allowances be ordered to be paid to the petitioner along-with interest @ 9% per annum.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was employed as a Beldar on daily wage basis with effect from 01.01.1990 and deployed as such at Dalikar Nursery under Range office, Pandoh, District Mandi, H.P. According to the petitioner, he continued to serve as such regularly with 240 days in each calendar year. Unfortunately, in the year 2003, he had to undergo treatment in a hospital on account of snake bite with effect from 16.05.2003 up to 25.05.2003 and in this particular year, he could not complete 240 days. The services of the petitioner were regularized against the post of Chowkidar vide Annexure P-3, dated 31.05.2017. Feeling aggrieved by the fact that the services of the petitioner were regularized with effect from the year 2017 rather than the year 2000, he filed an Original Application No.6423/2018 before the Erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, praying therein for issuance of a direction to the Authorities to regularize his services with effect from 01.01.2000 with all consequential benefits. The petition was disposed of by the Erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal vide Annexure P-5, with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment in Mool Raj Upadhyay Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. Thereafter, the respondents passed an order Annexure P-7, dated 19.06.2019 and rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that his case was not covered under Mool Raj Upadhyay’s case. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed contempt proceedings, which were disposed of by this Court vide Annexure P-8, dated 05.07.2022, giving liberty to the petitioner to assail the order passed by the Authority. This petition has been filed as a result of said liberty granted by the Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the factum of the petitioner having served with the respondents as a Beldar is not in dispute. By drawing the attention of the Court to the reply filed by the State, learned counsel submitted that even the State admits that the petitioner was engaged as a daily wage worker with effect from 01.07.1995. Learned counsel by referring to the preliminary submissions made in the reply filed by the respondents, submitted that there is own admission of the Department that as from 01.07.1995, the petitioner worked continuously and completed 240 days in each calendar year up to the year 2002 and during the year 2003, he completed only 232 days and as from the year 2004 onwards, he again worked continuously as a daily wager by putting in 240 days in each calendar year up to his regularization. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the regularization of the petitioner with effect from 2017 and not immediately after completion of eight years of service as from 01.07.1995, is highly arbitrary. Learned counsel submitted that in light of the fact that the respondents admitted that the pe