CWP/4813/2009 of JAGMOHAN Vs STATE on 30 December 2009

CWP No. 4813 of 2009

30.12.2009: Present: Mr. Surinder Verma, Advocate vice counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents.

The petitioner was engaged as Beldar in SNP Division, Badhukar on daily waged basis on 1.6.1998. He has worked for 145 days in 1999, 225 days in 2000 and 205 days in 2001. The petitioner has specifically averred in the petition that w.e.f. 1[st] January, 2002 till 31[st] December, 2008, he had worked continuously and completed 240 days in each calendar year.

Ms. Sood, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that her client has completed the requisite number of years as per the norms prescribed by the State 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 her, 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.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner had worked continuously and completed 240 days in each calendar year w.e.f. 1.1.2002 till 31.12.2008. However, he has worked only for 145 days in 1999, 225 days in 2000 and 205 days in 2001. 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 the employer should not give artificial breaks to deprive a workman from getting the status of regular/work charge employee.

Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Abdul Kadirand anothervs. Director General of Police, Assam and others, (2009) 6 SCC 611 have held as under:

“18. We are therefore of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in observing that the process of termination and reappointment every 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 1999, 2000 and 2001 while calculating 240 days. The petitioner has worked uninterruptedly w.e.f. 1999 to 2008. He has completed eight years of service, as prescribed under the norms laid down by the State Government for conferring work charge status.

Consequently, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for granting him work charge status after condoning the shortage of few days in the years of 1999, 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 respondents within a period of eight weeks from today.

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. No costs.

(R.B. Misra), ACJ.

30[th] December, 2009.

(tr) (Rajiv Sharma), J.