ATMA RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners were engaged on daily-wage basis as Beldars in the Forest Department in the year, 1992, but they had completed minimum 240 days in each calendar year continuously w.e.f. 1994 and completed eight years daily wage service as such on 31/12/2002. However, they were regularized vide order dtd. 10/10/2007 on issuance of Policy by the Government of Himachal Pradesh and availability of vacancies.

(2.) Petitioners, alongwith others had filed CWP No.3056 of 2009, titled as Megh Singh and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Department to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in terms of judgment passed in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P. and Others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316. Claim of the petitioners was rejected in the year 2011 on the ground that petitioners did not complete ten years of requisite continuous daily wage service prior to 31/12/2003, which was precondition for extending benefit in terms of Mool Raj Upadhayaya's case. Whereupon, petitioners preferred Contempt Petition (COPC No.527 of 2011) which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court passed in CWP No.2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh. For not taking any decision by the respondents, another contempt petition (COPC No.666 of 2015) was preferred by the petitioners which was disposed of with a direction to consider case of the petitioners within a week from the date of passing of the order i.e. 19/11/2015.

(3.) After taking into consideration clarification received from the Government, it has been concluded by the respondentDepartment that Forest Department is not a Work Charge Establishment and, therefore, as observed in Rakesh Kumar's case, petitioners are not entitled for grant of work charge status in terms of judgment in Rakesh Kumar's case.