Daily wagers entitled to work-charged status after 8 years continuous service from due date, restricted to notional pay fixation and increments sans past arrears, even post-regularization or absent work-charged establishment.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Petitioner, Suresh Sharma had initially filed an Original Application i.e. OA No 2223 of 2017 before Learned Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal and upon abolition of the Tribunal, the same was transferred to this Court as CWPOA No. 2059 of 2020, seeking the following relief(s):

“(a). That the present OA may kindly be allowed and directing the respondents to give regularization to the applicant with all consequential benefits as per ratio laid down in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. & Ors, along with connected matters, which was decided on 28.07.2010 by Hon’ble High Court of H.P and decision rendered by the Apex Court in Special leave to Appeal (Civil) No.(s) 21939-22009/2011, titled as State of H.P & Others versus Som Nath & Others, which was decided on 07.05.2013 as per the 8 years’ policy, as and when applicant has completed 8 years of service with 240 days since the applicant was engaged, with all consequential benefits with up to date interest, seniority, arrears of pay, pension, promotion etc;
(b). That the direction be given to respondents to give regularization to the applicants, when he has completed 8 years of service, as has been done by the respondent department in the case of similarly situated persons.”

FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Grievance is that the petitioner was engaged as Beldar on 26.10.1994 under Horticulture Department and he was regularized as Beldar w.e.f. 18.02.2009 [Annexure A-1] after completion of 15 years of service with 240 days in each calendar year. It is averred that the State Authorities have issued a policy for granting regularization/work charge status to daily waged incumbents from the date they completed 08 years of continuous service and this policy came up for consideration before this Court in CWP No.2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar Versus State of H.P. & Ors., alongwith connected matters, which was decided on 28.07.2010 whereby the State Authorities were directed to grant regularization/work charge status from the date he completed requisite 08 years continuous service. It is averred that benefits of regularization/work charge status have been granted to other similarly situated persons.
It is averred that due to non-grant of regularization/work charge status from the due date of completion of eight years of continuous daily-waged service, the petitioner was deprived of the benefit of higher status and pay fixation with all consequential benefits. It is in this backdrop that the instant petition was filed.

STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT:
3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 13.05.2017, the State authorities have filed the Reply-Affidavit dated 05.07.2017, of Director of Horticulture, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.
3(i). Perusal of the Reply-Affidavit admits that the petitioner was engaged as a daily-waged labourer w.e.f. 26.10.1994 and had completed 240 days in each calendar year w.e.f. 1995 onwards. It is further admitted that the petitioner was regularized on 17.02.2009 as Beldar by the State authorities on availability of a vacancy on the basis of seniority. The Reply-Affidavit indicates that the petitioner is not eligible for regularization w.e.f. 31.12.2002, as claimed in the writ petition. The Reply-Affidavit further indicates that, so far as work charge status is concerned, the same cannot be granted to the petitioner, for the reason, that the respondent/Horticulture Department does not have a work charge establishment and therefore, the claimed benefit was repelled by the State Authorities, with a prayer for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner on Instructions states that he does not intend to file rejoinder [Statement Taken on Record].

5. Heard, Mr. Anil Kumar God, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Learned State Counsel and have gone through the material available on record.

ANALYSIS:
6. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumsta