BALWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks for a direction against the respondents to absorb the petitioner as worked-charged employee in terms of the instructions issued by the Director, PSEB on 23.01.1989. The said instructions came by means of a Circular issued to all the Engineers-in-Chief, Directors and all XENs and SDOs that issue regarding conversion of daily waged workers into work-charged workmen have been reviewed by the Board and that it had decided that all daily- waged workers, who had put in 500 working days in the service of the Board upto 31.03.1988 and continuing in service of the Board, would become eligible to be converted into work-charged workers. The contention of the petitioner was that he was entitled to consideration in terms of the Circular as work-charged workmen w.e.f. 23.01.1989 and that he should have also been regularized in the manner it was done to the persons, who were juniors to him and who had been treated as such work-charged workmen and also regularized in the respective posts. The petitioner himself was afforded the facility of conversion only on 26.09.1991 and the petitioner is aggrieved about the fact that he had still not been regularized and that he had been treated as work- charged workmen later to his juniors.

(2.) The response from the Electricity Board on the issue whether the petitioner had in the first place completed 500 working days upto 31.03.1988, was that he had not completed 500 days. To the reliance made by the petitioner on the basis of certificates issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer at the Sub- Division where he was working at Patiala that he had worked for more than 500 days, the contention raised by the respondents was that the workmen was working on temporary basis on a contingent basis and a daily-waged worker on such contingency basis whatever be the length of time, would not become qualified to be eligible for consideration for such conversion. I see the defence taken by the respondents to be stated to be only rejected. In the policy statement issued on 31.03.1989, it does not state anywhere that the conversion of a daily-waged worker should be a person, who is not employed on any contingent basis. I have not been shown through any provision that even a Electricity Board daily wage worker could be employed otherwise than on any contingency basis. The very nature of engagement, putting a person on daily waged basis is for securing some services which is temporary in character or for a particular purpose or a contingency. To make dichotomy between a daily waged worker, who was not in contingency basis and a daily waged worker, who was in contingency basis is making a difference without a distinction. The certificates issued by the AE, PSEB, Patiala and the Principal, TTI, Patiala, relied on by the petitioner, clearly pointed out to the fact that the petitioner had worked as a daily waged worker upto 31.03.1988 for a period in excess of 500 days.

(3.) The entitlement of conversion has come later on 26.09.1991 and according to the petitioner, it must relate to the date when the Circular was issued on 23.01.1989. This contention of the petitioner is rejected as not tenable because a justification for conversion of daily waged worker into work- charged employee merely refers to a scope for such conversion in future. As to when they gave effect to it is invariably left only to the establishment to consider. In this case, the averment in the petition was that a person by name Balbir Singh was junior to him and that he had been converted as a work-charged employee earlier. The reference to this person has been countered in the reply of the Electricity Board by pointing out that there were two persons by the same name Balbir Singh in the office of the Principal, TTI, Patiala and one of them worked upto sixth month of 1988 and other worked upto 15.11.1988 on contingency basis. It is contended that none of them was made as work-charged employee and no proof was adduced before me by the petitioner on whom the initial burden rests to say that any other person who had been his junior had been given the benefit of a treatment as a work-charged employee before it was done for the petitioner on 26.09.1991.