1. Since the common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, the same have been taken up together and decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of clarity, the facts of WPSS Nos.2178/2014 and 1142 of 2016 have been taken into consideration.

2. Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this petition, are that in WPSS No.2178/14, petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis w.e.f. 1.12.1980. He was conferred the ‘work-charge’ status on 24.4.1997 and his services were regularized on 21.8.2003. In WPSS No.1142/16, petitioner was appointed in the year 1975. He was retrenched in the year 1982 and was reinstated vide order dated 16.3.1993. He was made work charge

employee on 8.5.2001 and was regularized on 19.1.2009. He retired on 31.10.2015.

3. Mr. M.C. Pant and other Advocates appearing for the petitioners, have vehemently argued that the respondent-Department has not counted the services rendered by the petitioners on work-charge status followed by regularization. Petitioners have also challenged the vires of Regulation 370 of the Civil Service Regulations (CSR) being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

4. Mr. Pant further argued that Articles 667, 668 and 669 of the Irrigation Manual have been deleted in the year 2000 in the Irrigation Department and in the Public Works Department vide order dated 10.12.2001. Thus, Regulation 370 of CSR has lost its efficacy. He further contended that as per the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, all the petitioners would be deemed to be in continuous service after completion of 240 days. He further contended that the petitioners were paid salary under the ‘Salary Head’ and not under ‘Wages’. His clients were never appointed under any specific Project/sub-work.

5. Learned State Counsel argued that the petitioners are not entitled to count their services rendered by them in the work charge capacity followed by regularization. According to him, petitioners were required to put in minimum 10 years regular service.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for all the parties and have gone through the pleadings very carefully.

7. Regulations 667, 668 and 669 contained in Irrigation Manual reads as under: -

“667. Work-charged establishment will include such establishment as is employed upon the actual execution, as distinct from the general supervision, of a specific work or of sub-works of a specific project or upon the subordinate supervision of departmental labour, stores and machinery in connection with such a work or sub-works. When employees borne on the temporary establishment are employed on work of this nature their pay should, for the time being, be charges direct to the work.

Notes.-(1) Persons who actually do the work with their hands, such as, beldars, masons, carpenters, fitters, mechanics, drivers, etc., should be engages only when works are carried out departmentally, and charged to works. In cases in which it is considered necessary, as a safeguard against damage to the Government Tools and Plant, such as road-rollers, concrete-mixtures, pumping-sets and other machinery, mechanics, drivers, etc., may be engages by the Department, or alternatively, if engaged by the contractor must be subject to approval by the department, whether the work is done departmentally or by contract.

2. Mistries and work-agents should, in all circumstances, whether they are employed on works executed departmentally or on contract, be charges to “works”.

3. Subject to the general principles stated in Paras 665 and 667 being observed, the classes of establishment not covered by these definitions may be classified as “work-charged, or temporary”, as the case may be, and the rule which prescribes that work-charged establishment must be employed upon a specific work waived, with the previous sanction of the Government and concurrence of the Accountant General. In such cases the Government shall also determine in consultation with the Accountant