RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the petition has prayed directions to respondents to grant him work -charge status from the date he has completed 10 years service as daily wager with all consequential benefits such as fixation of salary, seniority, arrears of back wages. The prayers for quashing Annexure P4 dated 25.2.2008 has also been made or in the alternative prayer has been made that the respondent No.1 may be directed to include in the said notification the employees of the other departments also.

(2.) THE brief facts as per petitioner are that petitioner was engaged as daily wage Chainman on 2.1.1992 and had completed 10 years service with 240 days in each calendar year. He was due for the work -charge status in terms of Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316. The work -charge status was not given to the petitioner but he was regularized on 15.6.2007 vide Annexure P -2. The policy of the Government of regularization covers all the departments as per Gauri Dutt and Ors. Vs. State of H.P. Latest H.L.J. 2008(1) 366. The notification dated 25.2.2008 Annexure P -4 giving the benefit to workers in HPPWD and IPH departments only and not to other similarly situated persons is arbitrary and discriminatory.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the reply the respondents have admitted that petitioner was engaged as daily waged chainman on 2.1.1992. In the reply, it has not been denied that petitioner after 2.1.1992 continued to serve the department for 10 years with 240 days in each calendar year. In fact from the petition and reply it emerges that from 2.1.1992 the petitioner continuously served the department without any brake. He has been regularized on 15.6.2007 and joined as such on 19.6.2007.