IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7123 of 2024 Date of Decision:21.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Jindo Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Angrez Kapoor, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that though petitioner herein was entitled to be conferred work charge status w.e.f.01.01.2003, but he has been erroneously granted such benefit w.e.f.01.01.2004. 2. Aforesaid claim put forth at the behest of the petitioner has been resisted by the respondents on the ground that though petitioner was engaged in the year, 1994, but since in the year 1995 he had not completed 240 days, period of eight 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 years for conferment of work charge status was calculated w.e.f. the year 1996, whereafter the petitioner served the Department on daily wage basis regularly with 240 days in each calendar year. 3. It is also not in dispute that petitioner stands regularized w.e.f. 01.01.2006 after his having completed more than 11 years. With a view to demonstrate that petitioner had worked for more than 240 days in the year, 1995, petitioner has placed on record communication dated 01.07.2024, enclosing therewith certain documents, issued by Public Information Officer-cum- Deputy Director of Agriculture, Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. Though, petitioner claims that afore document is with the respondents, but purposely with a view to defeat the rightful claim of the petitioner, same has not been produced on record. 4. By way of filing reply, respondents have reiterated that petitioner had not completed 240 days in the year 1995, rather he worked for 235 days and as such, there was no occasion, if any, to take the said year into consideration for the purpose of conferment of work charge status, but there is no specific denial with regard to existence of aforesaid document 3 dated 29.05.2024 (Annexure P-4) placed on record. It is averred in the reply that aforesaid document inadvertently placed as Annexure P-4, is not the original document, as the petitioner at no point of time worked for 240 days in the year, 1995. 5. Having taken note of the fact that document indicating that the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days in the year, 1995 was supplied to the petitioner by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh under Right to Information Act, coupled with the fact that there is no specific denial on the part of the respondents regarding existence of aforesaid document, there appears to be no justification to discard the aforesaid document. Even otherwise if it is presumed that petitioner had worked for 240 days in the year 1995, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that though in afore year, petitioner had worked for more than 240 days, but purposely, he was shown absent for five days, so as to deny him the benefit of regularization at a subsequent stage. 6. Question with regard to condonation of short breaks also came to be considered by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4367 of 2009, decided on 1.12.2009, wherein 4 Division Bench of this Court drawing strength from the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Abdul Kadir and another vs. Director General of Police, Assam and others (2009)6 SCC 611, wherein issue with regard to artificial breaks stands duly settled, categorically held that in light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, respondents ought to have condoned the shortage of few days, while calculating 240 days in a particular calendar year. 7. Though, having taken note of the document placed on record received by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, this Court is fully convinced that petitioner had worked for 240 days in the year, 1995, but yet placing reliance upon the claim of the respondents that petitioner had worked 235 days in the year, 1995, coupled with the fact that in subsequent years w.e.f. 1996 till 2003 petitioner had worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year, this Court sees reason to presume and believe that five days frictional breaks was purposely given by the respondents in the year, 1995 to prevent petitioner from regularization. 8. It is quite apparent from the perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge that same is 5 based upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Abdul case supra, wherein practice of giving artificial breaks from time to time and reappointing the same staff, has been held to be contrary to the service jurisprudence, relevant paras of the aforementioned judgment, are being reproduced herein below:- “16. We may next consider the challenge to the procedure of annual termination and reappointment introduced by the circular dated 17.3.1995. The PIF Scheme and PIF Additional Scheme were introduced by Government of India. The scheme does not contemplate or require such periodical termination and re-appointment. Only ex-servicemen are eligible to be selected under the scheme and that too after undergoing regular selection process under the Scheme. They joined the scheme being under the impression that they will be continued as long as the PIF Additional Scheme was continued. The artificial annual breaks and reappointments were introduced by the state agency entrusted with the operation of the Scheme. This Court has always frowned upon artificial breaks in service. 17. When the ad-hoc appointment is under a scheme and is in accordance with the selection process prescribed by the scheme, there is no reason why those appointed under the scheme should not be continued as long as the scheme continues. Ad-hoc appointments under schemes are normally coterminus with the scheme (subject of course to earlier termination either on medical or disciplinary grounds, or for unsatisfactory service or on attainment of normal age of retirement). Irrespective of the length of their ad hoc service or the scheme, they will not be entitled to regularization nor to the security of tenure and service benefits available to the regular employees. In this background, particularly in view of the continuing Scheme, the ex-serviceman employed after undergoing selection process, need not be subjected to the agony, anxiety, humiliation and vicissitudes of annual termination and reengagement, merely because their appointment is termed as ad hoc appointments. 18. We are therefore of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in observing that the process of termination and re-appointment every year 6 should be avoided and the appellants should be continued as long as the Scheme continues, but purely on ad hoc and temporary basis, co- terminus 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 is quashed.” 9. After having taken note of the document particularly qua year, 1995, this Court finds force in the arguments of learned counsel representing the petitioner that the artificial breaks were given by the respondents solely with a view to stop him from completing 240 days in every year so that prayer, if any, for regularization, is not made by the petitioner. 10. 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 No. (T) No. 1807 of 2009, titled Satish Kumar v. State of HP and Ors. and SLP (Civil) No. 20740 of 2008 titled Sarvjeet v. State of H.P. 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 7 dismissal of the aforesaid SLP preferred by the respondents- State. 11. Moreover, Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and others decided on 06.02.2025, has held that daily wage employee shall be entitled to work charge status on completion of eight years continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar years 12. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly same is allowed and petitioner is entitled to be conferred work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2003 instead of 01.01.2004. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits in terms of Surajmani case (supra). Pending applications, if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 21, 2025 (shankar)