PHOOL MAYA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the petition has prayed for work charge status as Beldar w.e.f. 1.1.2000 with all consequential benefits. The further case of the petitioner is that she was engaged as Beldar under the H.P.P.W.D. Division, Jubbal w.e.f. 1.2.1990 and was due for work charge status as Beldar w.e.f. 1.1.2000 in light of Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not given her work charge status despite the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court.

(2.) THE respondents No.1 to 4 have filed reply that the petitioner is a Nepali and Foreign National. The Recruitment and Promotion Rules for work -charge establishment notified on 5.5.1995 do not permit the work charge status to petitioner. Rule 14 of the aforesaid Rules has been modified on 11.7.2000. In brief, the learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that in view of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of work -charge Beldar in the Department of Public Works Department, Himachal Pradesh (for short ˜Rules), Annexure R -1 the petitioner is not entitled to work -charge status even if she has completed 10 years of continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year. The respondents in their reply have not disputed the engagement of the petitioner on daily wages since February 1990. There is no specific stand of the respondents that petitioner has not completed 10 years of continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year.

(3.) THE letter dated 11.7.2000 provides for amendment of Rule 14 of existing standard proforma of Recruitment and Promotion Rules (Essential requirement for direct recruitment). The letter dated 11.7.2000 does not affect the case of petitioner for more than one reason. There is nothing on record to show that in pursuance of letter dated 11.7.2000, Annexure R -1 Rules were amended and new Rule 14 was incorporated . The new Rule is meant for direct recruitment whereas case of petitioner is of appointment under first part of Rule 10 which is different from direct recruitment. In addition, petitioner has attained eligibility for work charge status on 1.2.2000 much before amendment was proposed on 11.7.2000 in the existing standard proforma of Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Therefore, letter dated 11.7.2000 does not affect the claim of petitioner for work charge status on completion of 10 years continuous service with 240 days in each year w.e.f. 1.2.1990.