IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No. 1262 of 2019 th Decided on 11 December 2023 Basant Singh Thakur & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

1 Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioners: Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral CMP(T) No.916 of 2023 g By way of this application, a prayer has been made ifor early hearing of the writ petition. Taking into consideration the fact that the writ petition was filed in the year 2012, the application is allowed.

CWPOA No.1262 of 2019

2. With the consent of the parties, the petition was taken up for final consideration today itself.

3. Petitioners before this Court were initially appointed as Beldar with the respondent-Department on daily wage. basis.

Petitioner No.1 was appointed as such on 19.08.1992, vide Annexure P-1 and petitioners No.2 and H3 were appointed as such w.e.f. 06.11.1992, vide Annexure P-2. This appointment was in the tribal area. Their services were regularized in the year 2006. However, the work charge status was not conferred upon them upon completion of ten years of service as a Beldar without any breaku and in these circumstances, the petitioners have approaoched this Court praying for issuance of a direction to theC respondents to confer upon them work charge status upon completion of ten years of service or regularized their service as such upon completion of ten years. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, has submitted that as the H services of the petitioners stood regularized in the month of July 2006, interest of justice would be served in case this writ petition is disposed of by issuing a direction to the respondents to confer work charge status upon the petitioners upon completion of ten years of service on daily wage basis.

4. The respondents primarily are denying the conferment of work charge status upon the petitioners. on the ground that there was no work charge establishment in the Department of Animal Husbandry. This isH the only ground that has been taken in the reply to deny the prayer of the petitioners to confer upon them work charge status. As far as the prayer of the petitioners to confer upon them the right of regularization after ten years, the stand of the State is that the petitioners have been regulaurized w.e.f. July 2006, i.e., the date, they were entitled for reogularization.

5. CBe that as it may, taking into consideration the fact that learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied in case a direction is issued by this Court to the Department to confer work charge status upon H the petitioners post completion of ten years of service as Beldar on daily wage basis (in tribal area, wherein, the requirement is of minimum 180 days in a calendar year). The moot issue is whether the petitioners are entitled for this relief in the backdrop of the response filed by the State or not?

6. The Denial of work charge status to the petitioners is based on the plea that there is no work charge establi.shment in the Animal Husbandry Department. This Court in CWP No.3111 of 2016, titled State of H.P. anHd Ors. vs. Ashwani Kumar, had up held and order passed by the Erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, wherein, it held that conferment of work charge status is not dependent upon the work charge establishment being there in the Department. The relevant portion ouf the judgment was passed by this Court in State of H.Po. & Ors. vs. Ashwani Kumar, is being quoted hereinCbelow:-

“6. Having carefully perused material available hon record, especially judgment rendered by this Court in Ravi Kumar v. State of H.P. and Ors, as g referred herein above, which has been further upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to appeal (C) No. 33570/2010 titled State H of HP and Ors