Daily wagers entitled to work-charged status after 8 years continuous service (240 days/year), limited to notional benefits per Supreme Court; factual disputes on records deferred to authorities via fresh representation.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Petitioner, Lachhmi Dass, has come up before this Court, seeking the following reliefs:-

“9(a) To issue a writ mandamus, appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof, directing the respondent department to grant the similar benefits to the petitioners as has been granted to the persons in CWP No.1653/2008 & LPA No.65/2010 with all the consequential benefits.”

FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was engaged as daily wage Beldar-Labourer in Forest Range, Kunihar, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in the year 1991, but despite completion of continuous service [except in the years 1994-1995], the petitioner has not been granted the work charge status from the date he completes 10 years of continuous daily wage service, whereas, the benefit of work charge status has been given to similarly placed incumbents. It is further averred that petitioner had filed CWP No.2126 of 2011, titled as Lachhmi Dass Versus State of H.P. & ors., which was decided by this Court on 18.04.2011, by directing the State Authorities to verify the factual details and to consider the case of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya Versus State of H.P. and others , 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316. It is further averred that the State Authorities have passed consideration order on 07.12.2011 [Annexure P-5], whereby, the claim for conferment of work charge status was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has rendered continuous service from the year 2000 onwards and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for work charge status.

STAND OF RESPONDENTS IN REPLY-AFFIDAVIT:
3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, State Authorities have filed Reply-Affidavit of Conservator of Forests, Bilaspur, dated 05.12.2014.
3(i). In Para-1 of Preliminary Submissions, State Authorities have admitted that the State Government issued a letter on 18.06.2007, providing for granting work charge status/regularization to daily wagers, who have completed 8 years of continuous daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.03.2006. It is further averred that based on the aforesaid Policy, petitioner did not complete 8 years continuous daily wage service with 240 days, as on 31.12.2005 or 31.03.2006 in terms of the aforesaid Policy issued in the year 2007, as referred to above.
In Para-2 of Reply-Affidavit, State Authorities have enclosed Mandays Chart [Annexure R-1], whereby, petitioner has been shown to have rendered 240 days of continuous daily wage service from the year 2000 onwards. In nutshell, case set up by the State Authorities is that petitioner has conferred 240 days of continuous daily wage service from the year 2000 and petitioner is not entitled for conferment of work charge status in terms of the judgment in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya [supra], which mandates the daily wager to have rendered 10 years of continuous daily wage service with 240 days as on 31.12.1993 or the aforesaid 10 years daily wage service thereafter. Even if, this Court takes into account the Mandays Chart [Annexure P-1 & Annexure P-2], still, the petitioner who is shown to have been engaged with 240 days in 1992, 1993 and 1996 to 2004 cannot be extended the benefit of the judgment in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya [supra], for the reason, that the petitioner has not rendered 240 days continuous daily wage service during the years 1994 and 1995 [for having served only for 182 and 132 days] and due to non-completion of continuous service of 240 days and non-completion of 10 years continuous service, the petitioner is not eligible for grant of work charge status from the date he completes 10 years continuous daily wage service as is being claimed in the writ petition.
3(ii). Learned