Rakesh Kumar vs State of H.P. and Others

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The Petitioners herein are workers who have been regularized in serviceunder the Irrigation and Public Health Department. All of them have beenregularized in service as per the various schemes announced by the State fromtime to time. Their only grievance is that before regularization, they shouldhave been granted the work-charged status.

The only reference to be made for analyzing the grievance of thePetitioners is two orders of the Government. One order is dated 3.4.2000 andother is dated 6.5.2000. Order dated 3.4.2000, reads as follows:

In partial modification of thisDepartment letter of even number dated 8th July, 1999 on the above subject, Iam directed to say that the Government has now decided that the DailyWaged/Contingent Paid workers in all the Departments including Public Works andIrrigation and Public Health Departments (other than work-chargedcategories)/Boards/Corporations/Universities, etc. who have completed 8 yearsof continuous service (with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year) as on 31-03-2000will be eligible for regularization. It has further been decided thatcompletion of required years of service makes such daily wager/contingent paidworker eligible for consideration to be regularized and regularization in allcases will be from prospective effect i.e. from the date the order ofregularization is issued after completion of coral formalities.

In view of the above decisionand in order to avoid any litigation and also any hardship to daily wagersdepartments shall do the regularization based on seniority and they will ensurethat senior persons are regularized first rather than regularizing juniorpersons first.

Other terms and conditionslike fulfillment of essential qualification as prescribed in R&P Rules,etc. etc. as laid down in this department letter of 8th July, 1999, as referredto above, shall continue to be operative.

These instructions may kindlybe brought to the notice of all concerned for strict compliance.

These instructions have beenissued with the prior approval of the Finance Department obtained vide theirDy. No. 852 dated 23-03-2000.

Order dated 6.5.2000, to the extent relevant, reads as follows:

During the process ofregularization of daily wagers, various issues and problems relating to theseworkers concerning their regularization have been brought to the notice of theGovernment. The Government in order to avoid such confusion or problems hasdecided to streamline the existing procedure/instructions in order to bringuniformity of procedure in various Departments of the Government. It has,therefore, been decided that henceforth:

(i) Daily Waged/Contingent PaidWorkers who have completed required years of continuous service (with a minimumof 240 days in a calendar year except where specified other wise for the tribalareas) which as per latest instructions issued vide this Department letter ofeven number dated 3-4-2000 is 8 years as on 31-03-2000 shall be eligible forregularization. However, in Departments/Corporations/Boards, where the systemof the work charge categories also exists, eligible daily wagers will beconsidered first for bringing them on the work charge category instead ofregularization. Such eligible daily waged workers/contingent paid workers willbe considered for regularization against vacant posts or by creation of freshposts and in both these events prior approval of Finance Department will berequired as per their letter No. Fin-1-C(7)-1/99 dated 24-12-1999. The termsand conditions for such regularization shall be governed as per Annexure -''A''.

This scheme was in force till a new scheme introduced on 9th June, 2006.The contention of the Petitioners is that on completion of 8 years service, asper the scheme extracted above, they are liable to be granted the work-chargedstatus being on a work charged establishment.

Learned Senior Additional Advocate General submits that as per theschemes, they have been regularized and since the scheme permits onlyregularization w.e.f. the date of the regularization, the Petitioners are notentitled to any further relief. It is also contended that in any case, sincethe Petitioners are claiming for a relief which they ought to have claimed inthe year 2004, this Court will not be justified in granting any relief sincethe Petitioners have not offered any satisfactory explanation for thein-ordinate delay.

6 The simple question is whether the delay defeats justice? In analyzing theabove issue, it has to be borne in mind that the Petitioners are only class-IVworkers (Beldars). The schemes announced by the Government clearly providedthat the department concerned should consider the workmen concerned forbringing them on the work-charged category. So, there is an obligation cast onthe department to consider the cases of the daily waged workmen for confermentof the work-charged status, being on a work-charged establishment, oncompletion of the required number of years in terms of the policy. At the best,the Petitioners can only be denied the interest on the eligible benefits and notthe benefits as such, which accrued on them as per the policy and under whichpolicy, the department was bound to confer the status, subject to the workmensatisfying the required conditions.

In the above circumstances, these Writ Petitions are disposed ofdirecting the Respondents to consider the case(s) of the Petitioners herein forconferment of work-charged status, subject to their eligibility in terms of thepolicy dated 3.4.2000 and as explained in 6.5.2000 policy, as extracted above.Needful in this regard shall be done within a period of three months from thedate of production of the copy of this judgment by the respective Petitioners.Needless to say that the question of conferment of work-charged status does notarise in case the establishment ceases to be a work charged establishment andhence, the conferment of the status will not arise after the abolition of thework-charged status of the establishment.

With these observations, the Writ Petitions are disposed of, so also thepending application(s), if any.