Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4017 (HP)

Yashpal Singh v. State of H. P.

2025-12-11

Ranjan Sharma

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. Petitioners, Yashpal Singh and Satinder Singh, being daily waged Beldars at the relevant time, filed CWP No. 1120 of 2010 and CWP No 704 of 2010 before this Court; and on establishment of Learned State Administrative Tribunal, these petitions were transferred to Tribunal; now upon its abolition, the matters have been transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No. 355 of 2019, Yashpal Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others and CWPOA No 7679 of 2020, Satender Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 2. Since the factual matrix as well as the relief claimed in both writ petitions is identical therefore, CWPOA No. 355 of 2019, Yashpal Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others, is treated as “Lead Case” for adjudicating both the connected cases together. 3. Upon transfer of both the matters to this Court, same were listed on various occasions and on listing of cases on 05.06.2020 none appeared for the petitioners and even thereafter, none had put in appearance on 14.07.2020 and 23.09.2020. Even upon listing of the matter today, there is no representation for the petitioner(s). 4. Since the relief(s) sought for in both the writ petitions are pari-materia, therefore, the prayer made in Lead Case, Yashpal Singh (CWPOA No. 355 of 2019); originating from CWP No.1112 of 2010) are reproduced hereinbelow:- “(i) That the writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued to quash and set aside the order dated 13-12-2006 at Annexure P-6 for modification whereby the services of the petitioner have not been regularized from 1-4-2004 after taking into account the cut of date i.e. 31-3-2004 as per Annexure P-5 and directions may kindly be issued to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to abide by the directions of the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh/ respondent No.1 to issue order to regularize the services of the petitioner as Beldar from 1-4-2004 as per Annexure P-5. (ii) That the writ of Mandamus may kindly be issued for allowing re-designation to the petitioner after converting the post of Beldar into regular Pump Operator-cum- Helper from 1-4-2004, the date when the services of the petitioner is sought to be regularized as Beldar in view of the decision of the Govt./ respondents at Annexure P-4, Annexure P-7 and Annexure P-8. (iii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued against the respondents directing them to include the posts of Pump Operator Helper/Beldar working exclusively at lift drinking water supply scheme, as feeder category to the promotion of Pump Operator in Clause No.11 of the R&P Rules at Annexure P-12. (iv) That the writ of mandamus may kindly be issued against the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion either by way of re-designation or otherwise to the post of Pump Operator as 49 post of Pump Operators are lying vacant in the Circle Office of respondent No.3 as per Annexure P-10 and also allow the pay scale of Rs.3120-5160/- along with other benefits with the similar qualification. FACTUAL MATRIX IN LEAD CASE: CWPOA No 355 OF 2019 ORIGINATING FROM CWP No. 1112 OF 2010) YASHPAL SINGH VS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH: 5. Pleadings indicate that petitioner Yashpal Singh was engaged as Beldar on daily wage basis in Lift Drinking Water Supply Scheme, Mangarh, in Sub Division Sarahan w.e.f. 01.04.1996 onwards and while working as such, the Respondents took a decision on 19.03.2005/19.04.2005 (Annexure P-1) to send matriculate Beldars for two months training of Pump Operators at Industrial Training Institutes/Polytechnics so that they can be deployed to assist the Pump Operators. It is averred that pursuant to this, petitioner was sent for two months training in Govt Polytechnic College, Sundernagar from 01.05.2005 to 30.06.2005 and after the completion of training, petitioner was to be re-designated as Pump Operator Helder) but this was not done. FACTUAL MATRIX IN CONNECTED CASE : CWPOA No: 7679 of 2020, ORIGINATING FROM CWP No 704 of 2010, SATINDER SINGH VS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH: 5(i). Pleadings indicate that petitioner Satinder Singh, was engaged as Beldar on daily wage basis in Lift Drinking Water Supply Scheme, Bru Sahib, in Sub Division Sarahan w.e.f. 01.11.1993 onwards and while working as such, the Respondents took a decision on 19.03.2005/19.04.2005 (Annexure P-1) to send matriculate Beldars for two months training of Pump Operators at Industrial Training Institutes/ Polytechnics so that they can be deployed to assist the Pump Operators. It is averred that pursuant to this, petitioner was sent for two months training in Govt Industrial Training Institute, Nalagarh from 01.05.2005 to 30.06.2005 and after the completion of training, the petitioner was to be re-designated as Pump Operator Helper but this was not done. It is averred that pursuant to this, petitioner was sent for two months training in Govt Industrial Training Institute, Nalagarh from 01.05.2005 to 30.06.2005 and after the completion of training, the petitioner was to be re-designated as Pump Operator Helper but this was not done. GRIEVANCE IN NUTSHELL: In this backdrop, the grievance of the petitioners is that after having undergone two months training as Pump Operator in Govt Polytechnics or Govt Industrial Training Institutes, the Respondents were bound to firstly, redesignate the petitioners as Pump Operator Helper from the date of their initial appointment as Beldars on 01.04.1996 and 01.11.1993 respectively; and secondly, once the State Authorities have regularized similarly placed trained incumbents namely Tikka Ram and Leela Dass, as Beldar (now Pump Operator Helpers) on 10.10.2007, (Annexure P-7 and Annexure P-8) then, action of the respondents in not extending similar treatment to the petitioners but regularizing them as Beldar on 13.12.2006 (Annexure P-6) was discriminatory and illegal; and thirdly, it is contented that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Pump Operator dated 30.05.2006 (Annexure P-12) which excludes the category of petitioners i.e. Beldar (Pump Operator Helper) despite the fact that the petitioners have been operating water lifting pump machine since long and therefore, petitioners should be promoted as Pump Operator by relaxing the rules with all consequential benefits ; and lastly, even if the Respondents had regularized the petitioners as Beldar on 13.12.2006 (Annexure P-6) but still petitioners have a right to be regularized (or granted work charged status, now contented, during hearing} as Beldar from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service from 0.01.2004 in case of petitioner no 1 and from 01.01.2002 in case of the petitioner no 2 with all consequential benefits. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY AFFIDAVIT: 6. Pursuant to the issuance of notice by this Court on 06.04.2010 in the Lead Case and the issuance of notice in connected case on 16.03.2010 State Authorities have filed have filed Reply-Affidavit(s) of Superintending Engineer I & PH Circle Nahan. 6(i) Reply-Affidavit indicates that the petitioners working as Beldar-cum-Pump Operator-Helper in I&PH Sub-Division Sarahan, in the Respondent Department since 01.04.1996 and on 01.11.1993. Reply-Affidavits specifically denied that the petitioners are continuously operating water lifting pump till now. 6(i) Reply-Affidavit indicates that the petitioners working as Beldar-cum-Pump Operator-Helper in I&PH Sub-Division Sarahan, in the Respondent Department since 01.04.1996 and on 01.11.1993. Reply-Affidavits specifically denied that the petitioners are continuously operating water lifting pump till now. Reply Affidavits state that consequent upon, the Government decision dated 23.08.2005 [Annexure R-1], the matriculate Beldars who had undergone two months training of Pump Operator in Govt Polytechnics/Industrial Training Institutes were to be re-designated as Beldar (Pump Operator Helper) or Pump Operator-cum Helper and these incumbents were to be deployed as Helpers to assist the Pump Operators in discharging their duties. Reply-Affidavits indicate that State Authorities have not created any additional post of Pump Operator Helper in the department and in terms of Government decision dated 23.08.2005 [Annexure R-1] matriculate Beldars, who have undergone two months training, including the petitioners were re-designated as Beldar (Pump Operator Helper) by the Respondent No 4- Executive Engineer, I&PH Division, Nahan on 14.07.2010 (Annexure R-II), by modifying the earlier regularization orders {i.e. 13.12.2006, in case of petitioners} as Beldar respectively. 6(ii). Reply-Affidavit states that the claim of the petitioners for redesignating them as Beldar (Pump Operator Helper} from the retrospective date of their initial engagement in 1996 and 1993 is not tenable as the decision for redesignating matriculate Beldars, who have undergone two months training in Govt Polytechnics/ITI,s was taken by the Govt in March -April 2005 (Annexure P-1), for which no new posts were created but posts of Beldars (Pump Operator- cum-Helper) were converted as Beldar (Pump Operator Helper) by the Respondnets, as in Annexure R-III and therefore claim for redesignation from earlier date was not tenable. 6(iii). Reply Affidavit states that allegation that other similar Beldars were redesignated as Beldar (Pump Operator Helper) on 10.10.2007 (Annexures P-7 and Annexure P-8) over and above the petitioner does not subsists as the Respondent No 4-Executive Engineer, I&PH Division, Nahan has issued an order on 14.07.2010 (Annexure R-II), redesignating petitioners as Beldars (Pump Operator Helper) {from the date of joining on the basis of regularization orders dated i.e. 13.12.2006 respectively. 6(iv). 6(iv). In Para 15 of Reply-Affidavit it is averred that 50 % posts of Pump Operator (Class-III) are to be filled by direct recruitment from persons, who are matriculate and who possess Certificate in Trade of Electrician/Wireman/Diesel Mechanic/Pump Mechanic/ Motor Mechanic/Pump Operator-cum-Mechanic from a recognized ITI which has to be a course of two years duration and two months training undergone by the petitioners cannot be equated with two years Certificate/Diploma and remaining 50% posts are to be filled from Helper/Pump Attendants who possess 8 years regular service as work charge, which shall include 5 years experience of working with Pump Motors and Electrical Accessories. However, proposal for amending the Rules has been sent, but outcome is awaited. 6(v). Reply-Affidavit states that mere completion of 8 years service will not entitle the petitioners for retrospective regularization, in terms of the policy dated 09.06.2006, Annexure P-5. In this backdrop, the State Authorities have prayed for dismissal of writ petition. 7. Heard, Mr. Amit K. Chaudhary, Learned Deputy Advocate General for the Respondents-State but since there is no appearance for the petitioner(s). Therefore, this Court proceeds to decide these matters, at this stage, after perusing the pleadings and hearing the Learned State Counsel also. ANALYSIS: 8. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the material on record, this Court is of the considered view, that the claims of the petitioners for redesignating them as Beldar (Pump Operator Helper) from the date of their initial appointment; and claim for parity in treatment as given to other incumbents and the claim for appointment and also for promotion as Pump Operator (Class-III) by relaxing the Rules and the claim for regularizing the petitioners as Beldar (Pump Operator Helper) from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service w.e.f. 01.04.2004 in case of petitioner no 1 and from 01.01.2002 in case of petitioner no 2 with all consequential benefits, instead of regularizing them as Beldar on 13.12.2006 [Annexure P-6] is not tenable, for the following reasons:- CLAIM FOR RE-DESIGNATION AS PUMP OPERATOR HELPER FROM INITIAL APPOINTMENT CANNOT BE GRANTED CONTRARY TO POLICY : 8(i). Petitioners were engaged Beldar in I&PH Sub-Division Sarahan, in the Respondent Department since 01.04.1996 and on 01.11.1993. Petitioners were engaged Beldar in I&PH Sub-Division Sarahan, in the Respondent Department since 01.04.1996 and on 01.11.1993. While they were working as such, the State Govt took a decision in March-April 2005 (Annexure P-1) that matriculate Beldars were to be sent for two months training of Pump Operator in Govt Polytechnics/Industrial Training Institutes. Accordingly, petitioners were sent for two months training from 01.05.2005 to 30.06.2005 at Govt Polytechnic Sundernagar and Govt ITI Nalagarh. Thereafter, State Govt took a decision on 23.08.2005 [Annexure R-1] that the matriculate Beldars, who have undergone two months training were to be re-designated as Beldar (Pump Operator Helper) by the Respondents. Accordingly, petitioners were sent for two months training from 01.05.2005 to 30.06.2005 at Govt Polytechnic Sundernagar and Govt ITI Nalagarh. Thereafter, State Govt took a decision on 23.08.2005 [Annexure R-1] that the matriculate Beldars, who have undergone two months training were to be re-designated as Beldar (Pump Operator Helper) by the Respondents. Plea of petitioners is that once they have undergone two months training then, they should be redesignated as Beldar (Pump Operator Helper) from date of initial appointment since 01.04.1996 and on 01.11.1993 is untenable, for the reason, firstly, the policy issued by the State Government on 23.08.2005 [Annexure R-1] provided for redesignating matriculate Beldars, who have undergone two months training of Pump Operators as Beldar (Pump Operator Helpers) without creating any additional post and by deploying them to assist the Pump Operators ; and secondly, even during the daily waged incumbency as Beldars from 1996 and 1993 (in case of petitioners), the petitioners did not possess the two months training of Pump Operator ; and thirdly, in absence of having possessed or acquired two months training, the petitioners were not eligible for redesignation as Beldar (Pump Operator Helper) ; and fourthly, in terms of the policy dated 23.08.2005, the petitioners acquired the eligibility for re-designation as Beldar (Pump Operator Helper), after undergoing two months training conducted from 01.05.2005 to 30.06.2005 therefore, the claim of the petitioners for re-designation from the date of initial engagement in 1996 and 1993 shall certainly amounts to conferring redesignation from a date from which petitioners were not eligible for such re-designation; and fifthly, re-designation can neither be conferred nor granted from an earlier date, despite being ineligible and dehors the policy dated 23.08.2005 (Annexure R-1) ; and sixthly, permitting the claim for redesignation from an earlier date shall amount to rewriting the policy dated 23.08.2005 which is impermissible ; and seventhly, the policy dated 23.08.2005 (Annexure R-1) cannot be applied retrospectively, but without there being an express mandate in such policy to grant redesignation retrospectively; and eighthly, for redesignation after two months training, no new posts were created but posts of Beldars (Pump Operator-cum-Helper) were converted as Beldar (Pump Operator Helper) as in Annexure R-III and like orders; and ninthly, on facts, Reply-Affidavits specifically deny that petitioners are continuously operating water lifting pump till now and even nothing has been placed on record by the petitioners to assert such a claim; and lastly, during pendency of instant petitions, the Respondent No 4-Executive Engineer, I & PH Division, Nahan has issued an order on 14.07.2010 (Annexure R-II), redesignating the petitioners as Beldars (Pump Operator Helper) from the date of joining on regularization vide orders dated 13.12.2006. In these circumstances once the petitioners have been granted the benefit of redesignation as Beldar (Pump Operator Helper) (Class-IV) vide orders dated 14.07.2010 (Annexure R-II) w.e.f. 13.12.2006 inaccordance with the policy dated 23.08.2005 (Annexure R-1) therefore, the claim of the petitioners for redesignation from an earlier date cannot be accepted dehors the policy and that too when, the petitioner was not eligible for redesignation prior to having undergone the two months training, as referred to above. PLEA OF DISCRIMINATION NO LONGER SURVIVES: 8(ii). Petitioners have set up a case that after having undergone two months training of Pump Operators, the State Authorities have redesignated and thereafter regularized similarly placed trained incumbents namely Tikka Ram and Leela Dass as Beldar (now Pump Operator Helpers) on 10.10.2007, (Annexure P-7 and Annexure P-8) whereas, petitioners being similarly placed were neither redesignated nor regularized as Beldar on 13.12.2006 (Annexure P-6) was discriminatory and illegal. The above plea no longer survives, for the reason, that during the pendency of the instant writ petitions, the Respondent No 4-Executive Engineer, I & PH Division, Nahan has issued an order on 14.07.2010 (Annexure R-II), redesignating the petitioners as Beldars (Pump Operator Helper) from the date of their joining on regularization vide orders dated 13.12.2006. Since the petitioners stand redesignated and regularized as Beldar (now Pump Operator Helper) from 13.12.2006 i.e. prior to the date of redesignation and regularization accorded to others, namely Tikka Ram and Leela Dass as Beldar (now Pump Operator Helpers) on 10.10.2007, then, plea of discrimination no longer survives. CLAIM FOR APPOINTMENT OR FOR PROMOTION AS PUMP OPERATOR DEHORS STATUTORY RULES UNTENABLE: 8(iii). Indisputably, the petitioners joined as daily wage Beldars on 01.04.1996 and on 01.11.1993 in I & PH, Sub Division Sarahan in I&PH Division, Nahan. While working as Beldar, the State Government took a decision in March-April 2005, that matriculate Beldars were to be sent for two months training in Government Polytechnic(s)/ITI’s. Petitioners were sent for aforesaid two months training along with others from 01.05.2005 to 30.06.2005. After completion of two months training, the State Govt took a decision on 23.08.2005 [Annexure R-1], to re-designate such trained incumbents as Beldar (Pump Operator-Helper) on same post of Beldar, without creating additional posts were to be created and even on regularization these incumbents were to be regularized as Beldar (Pump Operator Helpers). After completion of two months training, the State Govt took a decision on 23.08.2005 [Annexure R-1], to re-designate such trained incumbents as Beldar (Pump Operator-Helper) on same post of Beldar, without creating additional posts were to be created and even on regularization these incumbents were to be regularized as Beldar (Pump Operator Helpers). Though the petitioners were regularized as Beldars on 13.12.2006 (Annexure P-6) but during the pendency of the writ petitions, the State Authorities have issued an order on 14.07.2010 [Annexure R-II] redesignating the petitioners as Beldar (Pump Operator Helper) Class-IV, on regular basis from the date of their joining pursuant to issuance of regularization orders on 13.12.2006. Claim of the petitioners for appointment as Pump Operator (Class-III) is not tenable, for the reason, that post of Pump Operator is Class-III post and as per Rule 10(i) of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules dated 30.05.2006 (Annexure P-12), aforesaid post is to be filled 50% by appointment from persons, who were matriculate and who possess Certificate in Trade of Electrician/ Wireman/ Diesel Mechanic/Pump Mechanic/ Motor Mechanic / Pump Operator-cum-Mechanic from a recognized ITI, as prescribed under Rule 7 of the said Rules. In the instant case, once the petitioners do not possess the two years ITI Certificate in any of the aforesaid six prescribed Trade provided in Recruitment and Promotion Rules, then, the ineligibility of petitioners, for want of ITI qualification disentitles them from raising a claim for appointment as Pump Operator. Merely because petitioners have undergone two months training of Pump Operator Helper in terms of the Government decision dated 23.08.2005 [Annexure R-1] will neither equate the petitioners with ITI Certificate holders nor will it confer eligibility for appointment on post of Pump Operators dehors the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Petitioners being ineligible have neither any right nor any locus to claim appointment as Pump Operator (Class-III) dehors the Statutory Rules and therefore, the claim is untenable and is turned down. 8(iii-a). Claim of the petitioners for promotion as Pump Operators (Class-III), is governed by the Recruitment and Promotion Rules dated 30.05.2006 [Annexure P-12] and Rule 10(ii) provides that 50% posts are to be filled up from Helper/Pump Attendants who possess 8 years regular service as work charge which shall include 5 years’ experience of working with Pump Motors and Electrical Accessories. Claim of the petitioners for promotion as Pump Operators (Class-III), is governed by the Recruitment and Promotion Rules dated 30.05.2006 [Annexure P-12] and Rule 10(ii) provides that 50% posts are to be filled up from Helper/Pump Attendants who possess 8 years regular service as work charge which shall include 5 years’ experience of working with Pump Motors and Electrical Accessories. Perusal of the Rules indicate that the promotional post of Pump Operator (Class-III) is to be filled from Helpers/Pump Attendants and once the petitioners do not belong to the feeder category but are Beldar (Pump Operator helper) therefore, the petitioners neither have any locus nor any right for promotion to said post; and secondly, the right of consideration for promotion can be claimed only by persons falling in feeder category and not others; and thirdly, unless and until the petitioners were included in feeder category, they have no claim for consideration for promotion as Pump Operators; and fourthly, merely because the petitioners have undergone two months training of Pump Operator Helper in terms of Government decision dated 23.08.2005 [Annexure R-1] will neither confer eligibility for promotion to the post of Pump Operators dehors the Recruitment and Promotion Rules; and lastly, the petitioners have no enforceable right when, the eligibility for promotion accrues to the Helpers/Pump Attendants who have rendered 8 years regular service as work charged but on the date of filing of writ petitions in 2010, the petitioners have just rendered 4 years of regular or work charged service reckonable from 13.12.2006 (Annexure P-6) read with 14.07.2010 (Annexure R-II), then, the petitioners being ineligible, at relevant time, have neither any right nor any legally tenable claim for promotion to the post of Pump Operator (Class-III) in the respondent-Department and the claim for promotion, being ineligible is not tenable. 8(iii-b). 8(iii-b). Claim of petitioners for regularization/ appointment or promotion as Pump Operator by invoking relaxation is devoid of any force, for the reason, firstly, the plea that petitioners have operated water lifting pump from date of initial appointment in 1996 and 1993 and have also undergone two months training from 01.05.2005 to 30.06.2005 will not confer eligibility dehors the rules; and secondly, relaxation in Rule 16 of Rules vide Annexure P-11, cannot be claimed by the petitioners as of right; and thirdly, the power of relaxation lies within the domain of State Authorities, which is to be exercised, subject to formation of opinion regarding ”necessity or expediency”; and fourthly, mere hardships caused to petitioners cannot be a ground to claim relaxation, when, as per Rule 16, the relaxation is exercisable for a class, category of persons or posts, subject formation of opinion by the State Government on necessity or expediency which pre-requisites are absent in instant case; and lastly, the petitioners have no right to seek amendment of rules or issuance of new rules when, the discretion to amend the rules or issue new rules lies within the exclusive domain of the employer and such employer is the best judge to prescribe the qualifications required for a post. Till the extant rules are amended or new rules are notified, the existing rules are to be scrupulously followed. In instant case, as per the existing rules for the post of Pump Operator dated 30.05.2006, Annexure P-12, once the petitioners are not included in feeder category and otherwise also they are not eligible for appointment for want of ITI Certificate and are not eligible for promotion for want of requisite service for post of Pump Operator (Class-III), then, in these circumstances, the claim of the petitioners for appointment/promotion by invoking relaxation and claim for amendment or issuance of new rules is not tenable. CLAIM FOR REGULARISATION AS BELDAR UNTENABLE: 9. Further claim of the petitioners is that they were engaged as Beldar on daily wage basis on 01.04.1996 and on 1.11.1993 in the I&PH department and they claim regularization as Beldar from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous service w.e.f. 01.04.2004 in case of petitioner no 1 and w.e.f. 01.01.2002 in case of the petitioner no 2 instead of regularizing them as Beldar on 13.12.2006 [Annexure P-6] with claim for higher pay fixation etc. The above claim of the petitioners for regularization as Beldar from 01.04.2004 and from 01.01.2002, is not tenable for two reasons; firstly, the petitioner has not placed on record any material to show that on the date of completion of 8 years of continuous service as Beldar-Pump Operator-Helper as on 31.03.2004 and on 31.12.2001 respectively, the regular vacancies were available for petitioners; and secondly, regularization cannot be accorded to a person automatically, when, a person, though eligible, has a limited right of consideration, which accrues to a person subject to fulfillment of certain conditions i.e. availability of vacancy, seniority-cum-fitness and fulfillment of other parameters as per regularization policy dated 09.06.2006, Annexure P-5; and thirdly, the petitioners have not been able to establish that junior incumbents have been regularized over and above the petitioners. In these circumstances, this Court cannot exceed to the prayer for retrospective regularization, in the case of petitioner no 1 from 01.04.2004 and in the case of petitioner no 2 from 01.01.2002, in instant proceedings. ADDITIONAL CLAIM RAISED DURING HEARING FOR LESSER RELIEF OF WORK CHARGED STATUS : 10. Though the petitioners have neither any locus nor any right for retrospective regularization as Beldar from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous service from 01.04.2004 and 01.01.2002, [as per findings recorded in Para 9, supra] yet, during the course of hearing Learned Counsel for petitioners have prayed for grant of work charged status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service from 01.04.2004 and 01.01.2002, in terms of the mandate of law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs Surajmani and other connected matters [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025 decided on 06.02.2025]. Since this contention has been raised during hearing coupled with the fact that no foundation was laid in the writ petitions, therefore, this Court directs cannot issue a mandamus to the State to confer benefit of work charge status, but deems appropriate to direct the State Authorities to re-examine the case of the petitioners for conferment of work charge status as Beldar from the date they complete 8 years of continuous daily wage service i.e. from 01.04.2004 and 01.01.2002; and upon consideration, in case, the petitioners are found fit, therefore, lessor relief of work charged status needs to be accorded to the petitioners. However, it is made clear that upon grant of work charged status as Beldar from date of completion of 8 years of daily waged service, petitioners shall be entitled to the relief of “notional benefits” in applicable pay scale with pay fixation benefits from due date but without any past benefits, as mandated by the Honble Supreme Court in case of Surajmani (supra). DIRECTIONS: 11. In view of above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petitions [CWPOA No. 355 of 2019, and CWPOA 7679 of 2020] are partly allowed, in following terms:- (i) Claim of petitioners for appointment as Pump Operator (Class-III), dehors the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, being ineligible, for not possessing required ITI Certificate is disallowed; (ii) Claim of petitioners for promotion as Pump Operator (Class-III), dehors the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, being ineligible, for not possessing required 8 years regular work charge service and being not in feeder category disentitled the petitioners for any relief is disallowed; (iii). Claim of petitioners for retrospective regularization as Beldar from the date they complete 8 years continuous daily wage service w.e.f. 01.04.2004 and 01.01.2002, inabsence of any material to show that vacancy existed or juniors were regularised over and above the petitioners is disallowed; (iv) Claim of petitioners for appointment or for promotion as Pump Operator (Class-III) by invoking relaxation is disallowed; (v) Claim of petitioner for amendment of existing Rules for the post of Pump Operator dated 30.05.2006 (Annexure P-12) is disallowed; (vi). State Authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of work charged status as Beldar from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service w.e.f. 01.04.2004 and w.e.f. 01.01.2002, in applicable pay scale in terms of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani [supra]; (vii) Upon consideration, in case, petitioners have rendered 8 years of continuous service, necessary work charged status be granted from the date of completion of 8 years of daily waged service; by limiting relief to notionally benefits but without any past arrears ; and (viii) Parties left to bear respective costs. In aforesaid terms, the instant petitions and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall accordingly stand disposed of.