Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

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

“i) That the impugned order dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by the respondent No. 3-DFO, Nachan Forest Division, Gohar may kindly be quashed and set aside being non-speaking, unreasoned, arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, void ab-initio, non-est & violative of the judgment dated 23.04.2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 1044 of 2015 titled as Jai Singh vs. State of HP & others. as well as regularization policy framed by the Government of HP vide Circular dated 18.06.2007 (Annexure P-6), by issuing writ of Certiorari;

(ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f; 01.01.2006 instead 13.09.2012 with all consequential bene accordingly, reckon total qualifying service of the petitioner as 21 years taking into consideration from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2021 for the purpose of grant of pension and pensionary benefits etc. and justice be done.

(iii) That the respondents may further be directed to grant pension, commuted value of pension, gratuity & leave encashment etc. in pursuance of regularization of services of the petitioner w.e.f; 01.01.2006 and accordingly, release entire due and admissible arrears to him alongwith interest @9% per annum and justice be done.”

2. The issue that now remains in this case is in a very narrow compasos. As urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner, the limited Cprayer of the petitioner is that order dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-5), in terms whereof, the case of the petitioner for chonferment of regularization/work charge status from due date hasgbeen rejected, be quashed and set aside and direction be issued to the respondents to confer work charge status to the petitioner post completion of eight years of service with 240 days in each calendar year from the date of initial engagement.

3. Learned Counsel has taken the Court through order dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) and submitted that as per the respondents, the petitioner has completed minimum 240 days in each calendar year since the year 1998. Accordingly, he submitted that the petitioner has a right to be conferred work charge status upon completion of eight years of service with consequential benefits. He submitted that denial thereof is arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned Counsel also submitted that as per the judgment in CWP No. 1044 of 2015H titled as Jai Singh vs. State of HP & others (Annexure P-1), Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court was pleased to order the conferment of work charge status to a similarly situated person and denial of the same to the petitioner by simply saying that the petitioner was a Class-IV employee and not a Class-III employee does not suffice the purpose. He submitted that it is the principle of law which has been settled by this Court from time to time that a daily wager who has put in more than 240 days in each calendar year has a right to be conferred work charge status post c ompletion of eight years of service. Accordingly, he prayed that the present petition be disposed of by directing the respondents to confer work charge status upon the petitioner after eight years post completion of 240 days in each calendar year as from the year 1998.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner has not completed 240 days in the years 2002 and 2005, as is mentioned in the reply, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as is being prayed for by him. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that each case has to be decided on its own merit and herein the petitioner was conferred regularization as from the due date, i.e. the year 2012,thus, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

5. In rebuttal, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the