Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 485 (HP)

SIDHU RAM v. STATE OF H. P.

2005-12-22

B.S.CHAUHAN, M.R.VERMA

body2005
ORDER M.R. Verma, J. (Retd.) Chairman - The applicants in this original application have claimed the reliefs:- (i) That respondents be directed to regularise their services from the date when they completed 10 years of service as held in "Mool Raj Upadhyays case by the Apex Court; (ii) That the respondents be directed to pay the arrears since 1.1.1994 or from the day when the applicants completed 10 years of service; and (iii) That the respondents be directed to give 18% interest on 1 the arrears due to the applicants. 2. The case of the applicants is that they have successfully completed 10 years of continuous service with the respondents as daily waged Pipe .Linemen/Pump Operator in view of the contents of Annexure A-1. The respondents, however, are paying the daily wages to the applicants at the rate applicable to such daily rated workmen, though the duties/work being discharged by them is exactly similar to that of the regularly appointed Pipe Linemen/Pump Operator who are given better scale and thus, it is a case of exploitation of the applicants. Thus, the act of the respondents in not regularising the applicants and not giving them the time scale of pay is illegal, discriminatory, ultra vires of the Constitution and against the basic principles of natural justice. Hence this original application. 3. The respondents contested the claim of the applicants and in the preliminary submissions made in the reply claimed that the applicants have been given the work charged status w.e.f. 1.1.1994 in the respective pay scale of Pipe Linemen/Pump Operator i.e. Rs. 770-1410/- and Rs. 950-1800/- vide three different orders dated 31.10.1995 annexed with the reply. Therefore, the present original application has become unfructuous. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents and have also perused the material placed on the record. 5. As per Annexure A-1 applicants Sidhu Ram and Kewal Singh are shown working as Pipe Linemen Grade-2 since June, 1980 whereas applicant Babu Ram is shown to have been working as Pump Operator since November, 1983. 5. As per Annexure A-1 applicants Sidhu Ram and Kewal Singh are shown working as Pipe Linemen Grade-2 since June, 1980 whereas applicant Babu Ram is shown to have been working as Pump Operator since November, 1983. On the basis of Annexure A-1 it is claimed for the applicants that Sidhu Ram and Kewal Singh have completed 10years of service in the year 1990 whereas the applicant Babu Ram completed such service in 1993, therefore, applicant Sidhu Ram and Kewal Singh were entitled for the work charged status from 1.1.1991 whereas applicant Babu Ram was entitle for such status since 1.1.1994. 6. In so far as the case of applicant Babu Ram is concerned he has been given the work charged status as Pump Operator from 1.1.1994, therefore, his claim in this regard stands satisfied. 7. Insofar as the case of other two applicants is concerned, they claim regularisation on and w.e.f. 1.1.1991 in accordance with the judgment rendered by the Apex court in Moot Raj Upadhyays case 1994(2) SLR 377). This claim apparently is mis conceived. 8. 7. Insofar as the case of other two applicants is concerned, they claim regularisation on and w.e.f. 1.1.1991 in accordance with the judgment rendered by the Apex court in Moot Raj Upadhyays case 1994(2) SLR 377). This claim apparently is mis conceived. 8. In Mool Raj Upadhyays case supra the relevant modification made by the Apex Court in the policy regarding regularisation of daily waged workers reads as under :- (1) Daily Wage/Muster Roll Workers, whether skilled or unskilled, who have completed 10 years or more of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on December 31, 1993, shall be appointed as work-charged employees with effect from January 1, 1994 arid shall be put in the time scale of pay applicable to the corresponding lowest grade in the Government; (2) Daily-Wage/Muster Roll Workers, whether skilled or unskilled, who have not completed 10 years of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on December 31, 1993, shall be appointed as workcharged employees with effect from the date they complete the said period of 10 years of service and on such appointment they shall be put in the time scale of pay applicable to the lowest grade in the Government; (3) Daily Waged/Muster Roll Workers, whether skilled or unskilled who have not completed 10 years of service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on December 31, 1993, shall be paid daily wages at the rate prescribed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time for daily Wage employees falling in Class III and Class IV till they are appointed as workcharged employees in accordance with paragraph 2; (4) Daily Wage/Muster Roll Workers shall be regularised in a phased manner on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability including physical fitness. On regularisation they shall be put in the minimum of the time scale payable to the corresponding lowest grade applicable to the Government and would be entitled to all other benefits available to regular Government servants of the corresponding grade." The Scheme, as modified, shall be implemented with effect from January 1, 1994 and if any excess amount has been received by any employee on the basis of the interim orders passed by this Court, the same shall not be required to be refunded by him " 9. It is evident from the above quoted policy as modified by the Apex Court that this policy was to be implemented w.e.f. 1.1.1994. If so, applicants Sidhu Ram and Kewal Singh have rightly been given the work charged status on and w.e.f. 1.1.1994, the date from which the modified policy was ordered to be implemented. It is further clear from Clause 1 of the policy as quoted hereinabove, that even those daily wages workers who had completed 10 years Or more of continuous service with minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on December 31, 1993 were to be appointed as work charged employees w.e.f. 1.1.1994, meaning thereby that even if a daily waged worker had completed 13 years of service on December 31, 1993 as claimed by the applicants such workers were to be appointed as work charged employees only w.e.f. January 1, 1994 and not before the said cut off date. Thus, these two applicants have been appointed as work charged Pump Linemen on and w.e.f. 1.1.1994 as per the modified policy and they cannot also have any grievance and their claim has thus become infructuous. 10. The claim of the applicants for being given regular sale also stands satisfied because of the grant of scale to them as work charged employees as stated hereinabove. It is not the case of the applicants that the Pipe Linemen/Pump Operator who has been appointed on regular basis is entitled for better scale then granted to the applicants. Thus, the claim for parity in scale has also become infructuous. 11. Insofar as the claim of the applicants for payment of arrears as a consequence of their appointment as work charged employees is concerned, the respondents in their reply have not clarified .as to whether such arrears which were payable to the applicants consequent upon their appointment on work charged basis, have been paid or not. If not paid the applicants are entitled for such arrears as is evident from Clause (4) of the modified policy (supra). 12. The claim of the applicants for being given regular scale also stands satisfied because of the grant of scale of them as work charged employees as stated hereinabove. It is not the case of the applicants that the Pipe Linemen/Pump Operator has been appointed on regular basis is entitled for better scale then has been granted to the applicants. 12. The claim of the applicants for being given regular scale also stands satisfied because of the grant of scale of them as work charged employees as stated hereinabove. It is not the case of the applicants that the Pipe Linemen/Pump Operator has been appointed on regular basis is entitled for better scale then has been granted to the applicants. Thus, the claim for parity in scale has also become infructuous. 13. In view of the above, no directions are required to be issued to the respondents in this original application, save and except that the arrears of salary consequent upon the appointment of the applicants as work charged employee if not already paid to them shall be paid to them within three months. Ordered accordingly. The original application is disposed of In terms of the above. orders.