Annexure R-I

CWP No. 4489 of 2009

.
.P
14.12.2009: Present: Mr. Haresh Sood, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate

General and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate

H
General for the respondents.

With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being

of
disposed of at the admission stage.

The petitioner was engaged as Beldar in SNP Division,

rt
Badhukar on daily waged basis on 7.12.1998. He has worked
ou
for 203 days in 1999, 237 days in 2000 and 82 days in 2001.

The petitioner has specifically averred in the petition that w.e.f.

1st January, 2002 till 31st December, 2008, he had worked

C

continuously and completed 240 days in each calendar year.

h

Mr. Sood, learned counsel for the petitioner has

vehemently argued that his client has completed the requisite

ig

number of years as per the norms prescribed by the State

H

Government for regularization/work charge status and has also

completed 240 days in each calendar year except for the years

1999, 2000 and 2001. According to him, the employer has

given fictional breaks to the petitioner in an illegal and arbitrary

manner.

Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate

General submits that since the petitioner has not completed

requisite number of years with 240 days in each calendar year,

he cannot be given work charge status.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

gone through the pleadings carefully.

::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2021 13:01:39 :::CIS

 -2-

.
.P
It is not in dispute that the petitioner had worked

continuously and completed 240 days in each calendar year

H
w.e.f. 1.1.2002 till 31.12.2008. However, he has worked only

for 203 days in 1999, 237 days in 2000 and 82 days in 2001.

of
There is shortage of only few days in completion of 240 days in

the years of 1999, 2000 and 2001. It is settled law by now that
rt
the employer should not give artificial breaks to deprive a

workman from getting the status of regular/work charge

ou
employee.

Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Abdul

C

Kadir and another vs. Director General of Police, Assam and

others, (2009) 6 SCC 611 have held as under:

h

“18. We are therefore of the view that the learned

ig

Single Judge was justified in observing that the

process of termination and reappointment every
H

year should be avoided and the appellants should

be continued as long as the Scheme continues, but
purely on ad hoc and temporary basis, coterminous
with the Scheme. The Circular dated 17.3.1995
directing artificial breaks by annual terminations
followed by fresh appointment, being contrary to
the PIF Additional Scheme and contrary to the
principles of service jurisprudence, is liable to be
quashed.”
(emphasis supplied)

Consequently, in view of the definitive law laid down by

their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondents

ought to have condoned the shortage of few days in the years

::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2021 13:01:39 :::CIS

 -3-

.
.P
1999, 2000 and 2001 while calculating 240 days. The

petitioner has worked uninterruptedly w.e.f. 1999 to 2008. He

H
has completed eight years of service, as prescribed under the

norms laid down by the State Government for conferring work

of
charge status.

Consequently, the respondents are directed to consider

rt
the case of the petitioner for granting him work charge status

after condoning the shortage of few days in the years of 1999,

ou
2000 and 2001 and by re-verifying the years/days w.e.f.

1.1.2002 till 31.12.2008. This exercise be completed by the

C

respondents within a period of eight weeks from today.

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. No costs.

h
ig

(R.B. Misra), ACJ.

H

14th December, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma), J.

(tr)

::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2021 13:01:39 :::CIS

 Annexure R-II

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Execution Petition No. 336 of 2015.

.
.P
Date of decision: 6th August, 2015.

H
Shri Ravi Kumar. ……..…. Petitioner.

Versus

of
The State of H.P. & ors. ………….Respondents.

Coram rt
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.
ou
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
C

For the petitioner : Ms. Babita, Proxy Counsel.

For the respondents : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General

h

with M/s. Anup Rattan, Romesh Verma,

Additional Advocate Generals, Mr. J.K.
ig

Verma and Mr. Vikram Thakur, Deputy

Advocate Generals.
H

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral)

Issue notice. Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Deputy Advocate

General, waives notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. This execution petition is disposed of with a direction to the

respondents to comply with the direction, dated 14.12.2009, passed in

1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes.

::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2021 13:01:57 :::CIS

 2

CWP No. 4489 of 2009, within six weeks, if not already complied with and

report compliance before the Registrar (Judicial), in default, show cause.

.
.P
3. Registry to convey the order to the respondents and also

furnish the copy of the same to the learned Advocate General.

H
Copy Dasti.

(Mansoor Ahmad Mir)

of
Chief Justice.

rt (Dharam Chand Chaudhary),

Judge.
ou
August 6, 2015,
(vandna/Rajni)
C
h
ig
H

::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2021 13:01:57 :::CIS

Annexure R-III
Annexure R-IV