2025:HHC:22620 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.5914 of 2020 a/w CWPOA No.3655 of 2020 Reserved on: 28.06.2025 Date of Decision: 14.07.2025 1. CWPOA No.5914 of 2020 Milap Chand & others ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 2. CWPOA No.3655 of 2020 Leela Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioners: Mr. Suresh Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions, these are being decided by a common judgment. 2. Though these two petitions were heard together with CWPOA No.3658, 3661, 3660, 3664, 3665, 3666, 3668, 3669, 3671, 3677, 3679, 3680, 3682, 3683, 3685, 3686, 3689,3691, 2 3694, 3697, 3699, 3701, 3702, 3704, 3705, 3707, 3708, 3710, 3712, 3713, 3716, 3719, 3721, 3723, 5893, 5906, 5907, 5911, 5917, 5921, 5923, 5927, 5940, 5943, 5946, 5948, 5950 & 5966 of 2020 on 28.06.2025, however, at the time of dictating the judgment, it has transpired that on account of slight difference in the factual aspects and reliefs claimed in these two petitions, these are required to be decided separately than all other petitions which are being decided by another separate common judgment. 3. All the petitioners herein were initially engaged on daily wage basis in HPPWD, B&R Division Joginder Nagar, District Mandi. Their services were regularized on different dates as detailed in the table drawn hereafter: Sl. No. Name Date/year/of engagement Regularization order 1. Milap Chand 1996 04-05-2011 2. Gian Chand 2000 27-01-2012 3. Ashok Kumar 04-04-1998 23-01-2012 4. Dulo Ram 10-02-1998 23-01-2012 5. Mast Ram 1996 01-02-2012 6. Vijay Kumar 25-05-1996 23-01-2012 7. Jagdish Chand 15-01-1998 23-01-2012 8. Amar Singh March 1996 19-03-2012 9. Prem Sagar 1994 04-05-2011 10. Joginder Singh 17-04-1996 23-01-2012 11. Shyam Lal 25-03-1996 24-11-2008 12. Sarwan Kumar July, 1996 23-01-2012 13. Raj Kumar 28-10-1993 04-05-2011 14. Savitri Devi 01-01-2001 23-01-2012 3 15. Pritam Singh July 1997 24-04-2008 16. Ram Saran 25-11-1994 04-05-2011 17. Raj Mal 17-01-1994 04-05-2011 18. Ramesh Chand 1996 23-01-2012 19. Udho Ram March 1996 04-05-2011 20. Leela Devi 01/1995 01-12-2008 4. The petitioners have claimed that during initial years of their engagement the respondents had prevented them from completing 240 days of service in a calendar year by giving fictional breaks, however, later the respondents allowed the petitioner to complete 240 days in each calendar year. Thus, for the purposes of computing the continuous daily wage service of petitioners for the purposes of regularization, the years in which the petitioners could not complete 240 days engagement were excluded. 5. According to the petitioners, they were always ready and willing to work for more than 240 days in every calendar year after their engagement on daily wages, but it was only on account of fictional breaks given by the respondents that they were prevented from doing so. 6. Thus, the petitioners claim that the entire period of their daily wage service, when they were not allowed to complete 240 days in a calendar year, be also considered as continuous service towards seniority and continuity in service and further the 4 services of the petitioners be regularized on completion of 8 years by counting those years also during which fictional breaks were granted. 7. The respondents have contested the claim of the petitioners by alleging that no fictional breaks were given to them by the respondents. It is the specific case of the respondents that the petitioners themselves worked intermittently and for such reason they could not complete 240 days continuous service in each calendar year. The services of the petitioners have been regularized by calculating the requisite period of 8 years continuous service from the year in which they completed 240 days service. 8. The respondents have also taken a plea that the claim of the petitioner is barred by delay and latches. It has been submitted that the services of the petitioners were regularized between the years 2010 to 2012 and the instant petitions have been filed in 2018 at a belated stage. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record carefully. 10. The only question that arises for determination is whether the services of the petitioners for those years in which they had not completed 240 days of service can be considered for continuity of their service and other benefits as claimed. 5 11. As per details of man-days chart of the petitioners provided by respondents, the factual aspect can be seen as under: S.N O Nam e of work man & Fath er nam e Year wise working days 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14 15 16 17 1. Sh. Mila p chan d S/o Sh. Par ma 202 234 212 180 167 199 315 262 357 361 353 299 342 339 89 2. Sh. Gian Cha nd s/o Sh. Gan ga Ram - - - - 239 231 231 325 342 347 354 349 362 261 356 3. Sh. Ash ok S/o Sh. Sund er Sing h - - 129 233 227 227 238 295 310 326 344 350 356 322 302 4. Sh. Dulo Ram s/o Sh. Day al Ram - - 104 22 206 191 221 317 362 314 365 363 350 361 339 5. Sh. Mast Ram s/o Sh. Sha mbh u Ram 173 166 172 149 174 134 199 254 296 256 310 267 325 342 327 6. Sh Vija y Kum a r 155 211 204 260 210 235 221 318 365 330 358 363 366 365 363 6 alias Vija y Sing h S/0 Sh. Mag heru 7. Sh. Jagd ish Cha nd S/o Sh. Bha gi Ram - - 216 230 221 236 228 317 333 348 335 354 361 353 359 8. Sh. Ama r Sing h S/o Sh. Sain u Ram 115 222 230 216 222 203 226 295 291 298 283 311 326 331 330 9. Sh. Pre m Saga r S/o Sh. Pura n Cha nd 237 172 167 203 224 232 311 254 364 365 363 365 365 365 365 10. Sh. Jogi nder Sing h S/o Bish anu Ram 180 206 198 168 138 131 212 295 291 298 283 311 326 331 330 11. Sh. Shya m lal s/o Ram Sing h 193 193 238 270 355 363 365 366 363 361 364 - - - 12. Sh. Sarw an Kum ar S/o Sh. Rosh an Lal 85 201 354 193 218 203 319 340 353 344 397 361 340 356 13. Sh. Raj Kma r S/o Sh. Ram Sing 238 210 227 229 221 197 285 345 356 352 352 350 362 355 - 7 h 14. Smt. Savit ri w/o Sh. Rosh an Lal - - - - - - 229 312 361 365 363 361 354 359 343 15. Sh. Prita m sing h S/o Sh. Khaj ana - 142 238 244 277 362 365 365 364 361 365 365 - - - 16. Sh. Ram Sing h S/o Day al Ram 200 200 198 207 232 230 314 359 331 363 350 363 364 365 - 17. Sh. Raj Mal S/o Sh. Bab u Ram 208 228 242 226 220 229 322 357 350 354 363 335 339 363 - 18. Sh. Ram esh Cha nd S/o Mak holi Ram 125 178 205 160 170 158 224 300 300 337 315 317 338 346 326 19. Sh. Udh o Ram S/o Sh. Shya ma 208 227 203 187 241 222 317 365 360 355 357 353 359 364 - 20. Smt. Leel a Devi W/o Sh. Kali Dass 224 226 217 211 327 310 311 298 334 351 351 363 - - - 12. The information available from above man-days chart of the petitioners is evident of the fact that even in those initial years of the engagement of petitioners in which 240 days in 8 calendar year were not completed the number of days for which they had worked were quite substantial and thus negate the argument that the petitioners themselves were not interested to work. The above inference can easily be drawn keeping in view the fact that in most of such years the petitioners had worked for more than 175 days in each calendar year. 13. A Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 22nd August, 2024, passed in a bunch of matters with CWPOA No.7438 of 2020, titled Gopal Singh vs. State of H.P. & others as lead case, has adjudicated upon and settled the above issue. The relevant extract of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Division Bench in Gopal Singh (supra) is as under: “20. In similar circumstances, learned Single Judge of this High Court in CWP No.352 of 2019, titled as Keshav Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 1.7.2020, after taking into consideration judgments passed in CWP(T) (CWPOA) No.8145 of 2008, titled as Beli Ram v. State of H.P. and others decided on 02.06.2009; and CWP(T)(CWPOA) No.8143 of 2008, titled as Layak Ram v. State of H.P. and others, decided on 15.6.2009, has ordered that petitioner therein shall be deemed to have completed 240 days during years 2001 and 2002 also, in which years he was not allowed to complete 240 days, with further direction to regularize the services of the petitioner with all consequential benefits from the date of 9 completion of 8 years service, counting the same from initial date of appointment. 21 Similar directions were passed by learned Single Judge of this High Court vide judgment dated 9.7.2010, passed in CWP(T)(CWPOA) No.5752 of 2008, titled as Keshav Ram v. Secretary IPH & others, directing the respondents-Departments that petitioner shall be deemed in continuous service from the date of his initial engagement after ignoring the fictional breaks given to the petitioner therein from the year 1994, with further observation that the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits of continuous service of period from the date of initial appointment. 22 Judgment passed in CWP(T)(CWPOA) No.5752 of 2008, titled as Keshav Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, was assailed by the State of Himachal Pradesh by filing LPA No.645 of 2011, titled as State of H.P. & others v. Sh. Keshav Ram, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this High Court vide judgment dated 30.8.2017, by considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Abdul Kadir and anr. v. Director General of Police, Assam and others, (2009) 6 SCC 611, with observation which reads as under :- “9. During proceedings of the case, it is also brought to our notice that SLP(C ) bearing No. 21833 of 2010 having been preferred by the respondents against the similar judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP(T) No. 1807 of 2009, titled Satish Kumar vs. State of HP and Ors. and LPS (Civil) No. 20740 of 2008 titled Sarvjeet vs State of HP 10 and Ors, stand dismissed and as such, judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4367 of 2009, wherein directions were issued to respondents to condone the shortage of few days in a particular year while calculating 240 days, has attained finality. Learned Additional Advocate General was not able to dispute the factum as brought to our notice with regard to dismissal of the aforesaid SLP preferred by the respondents- State. 10. Leaving everything aside, after having carefully perused the impugned judgment, we find that judgment impugned before us is squarely based upon law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Mohd. Abdul Kadir case supra and as such, there is no scope of interference by this Court.” 23. In CWP No.4489 of 2009, titled as Ravi Kumar v. State of H.P, decided on 14.12.2009, a similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this High Court. 24 By relying upon Mohd. Abdul Kadir’s [(2009)6 SCC 11] Keshav Ram’s (CWP No.3111 of 2016) and Ashwani Kumar’s cases, similar period of artificial breaks during few years, after initial appointment of the petitioner, was also directed to be condoned by a Division Bench of this High Court in CWPOA 6089 of 2020, titled as Dharam Chand v. H.P. State and others, decided on 28.11.2023. 25. After going through the pleadings in the petitions as well as reply(ies) thereto and documents placed on record and also on perusal of judgments, referred supra, it is undisputed that present matters are 11 squarely covered by aforesaid judgments passed in Keshav Ram, Ravi Kumar, Ashwani Kumar and Dharam Chand’s cases. 14. Hon’ble Division bench had observed that since, the employer had failed to show firstly that the workmen had omitted to join despite being offered work and secondly that the workmen, who otherwise were on muster rolls, were issued notices to join, the inference as to grant of fictional breaks can be gathered. 15. Resultantly, the petitioners, in the above noted bunch of petitions, were held entitled for condonation of respective break periods w.e.f. their initial appointment till the year they were allowed to complete 240 days in each calendar year and the respondents were directed to count their service from the initial date of engagement for continuity in service, seniority and confirming the work charge status/regularization of service from the date of completion of 8 years w.e.f. their initial appointment along with consequential benefits. The amount, if already paid, was ordered to be adjusted against the arrears payable to the petitioners therein. 16. In the instant cases also no such material has been placed on record by the respondents so as to establish that the work was offered to petitioners or they had refused to work despite offer made to them. 12 17. Noticeably, in the bunch of matters, decided by Hon’ble Division Bench along with Gopal Singh (supra), the petitioners in two cases i.e. CWPOA No.7574 of 2020, titled Karam Chand vs. State of H.P. & others and CWPOA No.7577 of 2020, titled Tej Mal vs. State of H.P. & others were similarly placed as the petitioners in the instant cases. The petitioners in the said petitions were also engaged as daily waged Beldars in Joginder Nagar Division of H.P.PWD and they were juniors to many of the petitioners. Since, the cases of the petitioners herein are squarely covered by the facts of the cases decided by Hon’ble Division Bench, the petitioners herein cannot be treated differently. Their entire daily wage service is required to be counted for the purposes of continuity in service, seniority and conferment of work charge status/regularization of service after condonation of their respective break periods being fictional. 18. The claim of petitioners cannot be defeated on the ground of delay and laches because the petitioners are daily wage workers for whom the litigation cannot be the life’s priority, still with their means and resources the petitioners have fended for their rights and had earlier approached the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal and had succeeded in securing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the cases of petitioners. The respondents then had passed the order rejecting 13 claims of the petitioners in 2017. Even otherwise, the reliefs sought herein by the petitioners may entail pensionary benefits for which the petitioners have recurring cause. 19. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. Respondents are directed to condone all respective break periods of the petitioners with effect from their initial appointment, in which 180 man-days or more (75% of 240 days) were rendered, till the year they were allowed to complete 240 days in each calendar year and count their services from the initial date of engagement for continuity in service, seniority and conferment of the work charge status/regularization of service from the date of completion of 8 years w.e.f. their initial appointment along with consequential benefits. The amount, if already paid, shall be adjusted against the arrears payable to the petitioners. 20. Petitions are accordingly disposed of along with pending application(s), if any. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge July 14, 2025 (vt)