PHOOL MATI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, herein was engaged on daily wage basis in the year 1989 and since then, she has been regularly, without there being any interruption, rendering her services in the Department of Agriculture, State of Himachal Pradesh. Since despite having her completed regular eight years' service as daily wager in the Department she was not granted work charge status and her services were not regularized in terms of policies framed by the Government for regularization from time to time, she approached this Court by way of CWP No. 3260 of 2011, which was disposed of by this Court on 5/9/2012, with direction to the respondents to consider and decide her case in light of judgment dtd. 27/7/2009, passed by this Court in CWP No. 1594 of 2008, titled as "Man Singh v. the State of HP and Ors."

(2.) Though pursuant to aforesaid order, petitioner herein filed representation to the Department concerned for granting benefit in terms of judgment dtd. 5/9/2012, passed by this Court in CWP No. 3260 of 2011, but her such prayer was rejected on the ground that she has not submitted any document in support of her claim. Vide order dtd. 20/12/2012 (Annexure P-2), Director of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh, while rejecting representation of the petitioner observed in the order that petitioner does not know her date of birth and as per regularization policy of the State Government, she does not fulfill the criteria of eight years and as such, cannot claim any parity with the case of Man Singh in CWP No. 1594 of 2008. In the aforesaid order, respondent No.2, recorded that Smt. Phoolmati, who is having nationality of Nepal has not submitted any document as per policy and R&P rules. Besides above, Director, Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh in order observed that R&P Rules for the post of Beldar Class-IV, in the Department of Agriculture, provide that candidate must be a citizen of India and since applicant is neither a citizen of India nor the eligibility certificate has been issued by the competent authority in her favour, she cannot be considered for regularization as her case is not similar to the case of "Man Singh". In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main relief:

(3.) Aforesaid claim of the petitioner has been refuted by the respondents by way of filing reply, wherein though they have admitted that the petitioner was engaged as casual laborer at Potato Development Station Kharapathar under the control of Deputy Director of Agriculture, Shimla, but have contended that since she did not complete 240 days in each calendar year till 1998, her prayer for grant of work charge status cannot be considered prior to the year 1998. Details of mandays chart placed on record alongwith reply clearly reveal that till the year, 1998, petitioner though worked in the department w.e.f. 1985, but not completed 240 days in a calendar year, however, after 1998, till her regularization, in the year, 2018, she continuously worked for 240 days in each calendar year.