Roop Dass Vs State of Hp and Others

The petitioner, by way of present petition, has sought direction to the respondents to grant him work charge status/regularization after completion of 8 years of service by taking initial date of engagement w.e.f. the year 2005.

¶11

The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was appointed as casual labourer on daily wage basis in the year 2006, but he had only completed 124 days in that calendar year. Subsequently also from the year 2007 to 2012, he did

¶12

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

2

¶14

2026:HHC:18693

¶15

not complete 240 days in each calendar year which, entitles an employee to be confered work charge status after completion of eight years’ service. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the respondents with a view to deny the petitioner conferment of work charge status as well as regularization did not permit him to work and complete 240 days in each calendar year, though funds were available with the respondents.

¶16

The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of CWP No.4733 of 2012-D, titled, Roop Dass vs. State of H.P. & Ors., and this Court vide order dated 20.06.2012 had made it clear that the respondents shall not give any fictional break to him only to deny him 240 days continuous service. The said writ petition was ultimately disposed of on 22.04.2015, taking note of the order dated 20.06.2012 passed by this Court and directed the respondents not to give frictional breaks to the petitioner. Since the petitioner had completed five years’ service, with 240 days in each calendar year from the year 2013 as on 30.09.2018, he was offered appointment as Peon vide office order dated 21.09.2019 (Annexure P-3), in the pay scale of ₹4900-10680 + 1300 Grade Pay. In sequel to the said office

¶17

3

¶18

2026:HHC:18693

¶19

order, the petitioner joined his duties as Peon. It has been averred that since the petitioner was not permitted to complete 240 days in each calendar year by giving him fictional breaks, he is entitled for conferment of work charge status and regularization on the analogy of the judgment passed by this Court in ‘Rakesh Kumar vs. State of HP’. It has further been averred that service of the petitioner from the year 2005 has to be deemed to be continuous within the definition of sub-section 1 of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The break in service of the petitioner leading to non-completion of 240 days in each calendar year is completely attributable to the respondents and not to the petitioner. The action of the part of the petitioner is also violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

The respondents filed reply to the petition and averred that since the petitioner had not completed 240 days in each calendar year prior to 2013, he is neither entitled for work charge status nor regularization. The services of the petitioner were regularized as per Government policy and further on availability of vacant posts on 21.09.2019. The respondents have complied with

¶21

4

¶22

2026:HHC:18693

¶23

the order passed by this Court in the petition instituted by the petitioner dated 20.06.2012 and final judgment dated 22.04.2015.

¶24

The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply and controverted the averments made therein.

¶25

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully.

¶26

No doubt, the petitioner as per the averment made in the petition was engaged in the year 2005, but as per the reply filed by the respondents, he had never completed 240 days in each calendar year before 2012. The plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was on account of the fact that the respondents had not permitted the petitioner to serve for 240 days, so as to disentitle him for not claiming work charge status is concerned, the said plea cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that in case, he was not permitted to do so, he could have come to the Court earlier. It is admitted fact that after approaching the Court and further after passing the order on 20.06.2012, the respondents have not given any fictional break to the petitioner. If the period from the year 2013 onwards is considered, the respondents after

¶27

5

¶28

2026:HHC:18693

¶29

completion of five years of service with requisite number of days in each calendar year i.e. 240 days as on 30.09.2018, had regularized his services vide office order dated 21.09.2019.

¶30

It is relevant to note here that once the petitioner had completed five years of service with requisite number of days in each calendar year as on 30.09.2018, in that eventuality, he ought to have been regularized from 01.10.2018, once the petitioner was working with the respondents and discharging his duties. The relief claimed by the petitioner to confer upon him the work charge status after completion of eight years taking the year as 2005 cannot be accepted, but in view of the fact that the petitioner had completed five years’ service as on 30.09.2018 with 240 days in each calendar year, he was entitled for regularization as Peon w.e.f. 01.10.2018 instead from 01.09.2019 and to that extent, his petition is allowed. 9. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.10.2018 with all consequential benefits. The respondents are directed to pay the arrears to the petitioner after regularization within three

¶31

6

¶32

2026:HHC:18693

¶33

months from today and in case the arrears on account of regularization are not paid to him with all consequential benefits, the petitioner shall be held entitled to the interest on the amount of arrears @6% per annum from the due date till its payment to him. However, there shall be no orders as to cost. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶34

19th May , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge

Roop Dass v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roop Dass v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narender Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Valley Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Kamal Jit Sharma Vs State of Hp

S.C. Sharma Vs State of Hp and Ors.

V K Bhardwaj Vs State of H.P

Balwinder Kaur Vs State of Hp