Himachal Pradesh Hou... v. The Executive Engine...

Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J (Oral)

The respondents HIMUDA have come up in appeal in all these cases. The learned Single Judge has only directed to consider the case of the writ petitioners for conferment of work charge status in the light of the decision of Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhayaya v. State of H.P Therefore, it is for the HIMUDA to consider the case of the writ petitioners in the light of the said decision and take appropriate action. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that all of them have been regularized in service as Work Inspectors after the Government granted relaxation for conferment of work charge status on completion of ten years service. The policy with regard to conferment of work charge status was to be followed by the HIMUDA as per the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Mool Raj Upadhayaya's case. It was made clear in the said judgment that said decision would apply in all Corporations and Government Institutions etc. Conferment of work charge status and regularization are two different concepts. Similarly, seniority is also another concept. Work charge status in terms of the decision of the judgment is available on completion of ten years of continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year whereas, regularization would depend on availability of vacancies and such other relevant factors. Therefore, it is for the appellants to consider the case of the writ petitioners in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhayaya's case and communicate the decision to the writ petitioners. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from today.

2. Subject to the above, the appeals are dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.