RATTI RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a daily waged Mason First Class in the Forest Department. He was engaged on 21st July, 1987 and worked in the construction Range Khalini and Chakkar in Shimla Forest Division, from the date of his engagement till 6.1.1998. He was being paid daily wages as admissible to First Class Mason from time to time, which fact has not been disputed by the respondents. THE petitioner was regularized as Forest Worker vide Annexure P-1, dated 7.1.1998 in the pay scale of RS.750-1350/- with the initial start of RS.770/-. By means of the present petition, he seeks the direction to the respondents, to re-designate/regularize him as 1st Class Mason, instead of Forest Worker w.e.f. 8.1.1998, with all consequential benefits. THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has given concession that in case the prayer of the petitioner is acceded to by the respondents, the petitioner shall forego the arrears.

(2.) THE petitioner also claimed parity and similar treatment as was given to one Shri Raj Kumar, an employee of the respondent-Department, who was a carpenter on daily wages but initially regularized as Forest Worker but later re-designated as Carpenter.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice State Government instructions Annexure-III S-1, dated 11th December, 1997 which provides the terms and conditions for regularization of daily waged workers in the departments (other than Public Works and Irrigation & Public Health Departments/ Boards/Corporations, Universities etc.). THE norms and principles regarding regularization of daily waged contingent paid worker provides that if the vacant posts are not available, the same may be created and the terms and conditions for such regularization shall be governed as per Annexure-A, appended to these instructions. THE respondents felt handicapped to regularize the petitioner because of non-existent of such a post in the respondent- Department. In my opinion, as per the policy of the State Government as contained in the instructions aforesaid, it could have been created. THErefore, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to move the case of the petitioner, for creating the post of Mason Class-III, to the first respondent, in view of the aforesaid instructions, within two months after production of a copy of this judgment/order and respondent No. 1 shall take a final decision within two months, thereafter. In case, the post of Mason Class-III is created, the second respondent shall take consequential follow up action immediately thereafter for the regularization of the petitioner on and w.e.f. 8.1.1998 with all consequential benefits except the arrears for the retrospective period of regularization as agreed to by the learned counsel for the petitioner.