Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1168 (HP)

Raghu Nath v. B. C. Bist

2010-10-05

KULDIP SINGH, KURIAN JOSEPH

body2010
JUDGMENT Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. The complaint of the petitioner is that the direction of the Tribunal in the order dated 27.12.2005 has not been complied with in proper spirit. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:- “Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances of the case the present Original Application itself is directed to be treated as representation to the Director of Animal Husbandry, Himachal Pradesh with a direction to decide the same within a period of two months from the receipt of copy of this order. The Director concerned is further directed to decide the representation of the applicant in accordance with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhaya vs. State of H.P. and others 1994(2) SLR 377 which is followed by this Tribunal in OA No. 1726/2003 titled as Randeep Singh vs. State of H.P. Latest HLJ 2005 (HP) 1367 and the same has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. in CWP No. 247/2004 titled as State of H.P. and Ors. vs. Randeep Singh decided on November 16, 2005, Latest HLJ 2005 (HP) 1368.” 2. In the reply at paragraphs 5-6, it is stated as follows: “In reply to these paras it is submitted that the representation of the applicant was considered in letter & spirit, as per the order dated 27.12.2005, passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal. However, it is pertinent to mention here that in the Animal Husbandry Department no post of work charged exists. The work charged category only exists in the Department of Public Works and Irrigation and Public health, where the daily wages are first brought on the work charged category. In the Animal Husbandry, Department of daily paid balder ore being regularized as per tile policies issued by the State Government from time to time. The applicant was already considered for regularization but he could not be regularized at that time as he did nor fulfill the conditions required as per the police of the Government vide letter No. PER (A.P) - C-B (2)-2/97-Vol IV, dated 3rd April 2000, the copy of which is annexed herewith as Annexure R-III. The applicant had not completed 8 years of continuous service (with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year, as on 31.3.2000, at the point of time. The applicant had not completed 8 years of continuous service (with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year, as on 31.3.2000, at the point of time. However, it is pertinent to mention here that as per the latest policy of the Government vide notification no. PER (AP)-C-B (2)-1/2006- Vol-II dated 9-6-2006 (the copy of which is annexed as Annexure R-I), the services of the applicant has been regularized, vide order No. AHY-H (1)-(2)-3/95, dated 6-7-2005, the copy of which is annexed as Annexure R-II and English translation thereof as Annexure R-T-II.” 3. Though, we do not find any contumacious conduct on the part of the respondent, we are of the view that the respondent has not properly understood the impact of the direction. This aspect of the matter has been explained by this Court in the recent judgment in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. & others, wherein, it was held by us as follows: “The petitioners herein are workers who have been regularized in service under the Irrigation and Public Health Department. All of them have been regularized in service as per the various schemes announced by the State from time to time. Their only grievance is that before regularization, they should have been granted the work-charged status. 3. The only reference to be made for analyzing the grievance of the petitioners is two orders of the Government. One order is dated 3.4.2000 and other is dated 6.5.2000. Order dated 3.4.2000, reads as follows: “In partial modification of this Department letter of even number dated 8th July, 1999 on the above subject, I am directed to say that the Government has now decided that the Daily Waged/Contingent Paid workers in all the Departments including Public Works and Irrigation and Public Health Department (other than work-charged categories)/ Boards/Corporations/Universities, etc. who have completed 8 years of continuous service (with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year) as on 31-03-2000 will be eligible for regularization. It. Has further been decided that completion of required years of service makes such daily wager/contingent paid worker eligible for consideration to be regularized and regularization in all cases will be from prospective effect i.e. from the date the order of regularization is issued after completion of codal formalities. 2. It. Has further been decided that completion of required years of service makes such daily wager/contingent paid worker eligible for consideration to be regularized and regularization in all cases will be from prospective effect i.e. from the date the order of regularization is issued after completion of codal formalities. 2. In view of the above decision and in order to avoid any litigation and also any hardship to daily wagers departments shall do the regularization based on seniority and they will ensure that senior persons are regularized first rather than regularizing junior persons first. 3. Other terms and conditions like fulfillment of essential qualification as prescribed in R & P Rules, etc. etc. As laid down in this department letter of 8th July. 1999, as referred to above, shall continue to be operative. 4. These instructions may kindly be brought to the notice of all concerned for strict compliance. 5. These instructions have been issued with the prior approval of the Finance Department obtained vide their Dy. No. 852 dated 23-03-2000." 4. Order dated 6.5.2000, to the extent relevant, reads as follows: "2. During the process of regularization of daily wagers, various issues and problems relating to these workers concerning their regularization have been brought to the notice of the Government. The Government in order to avoid such confusion or problems has decided to streamline the existing procedure/instructions in order to bring uniformity of procedure in various Departments of the Government. It has, therefore been decided that henceforth: (i) Daily Waged/Contingent Paid Workers who have completed required years of continuous service (with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year except where specified other wise for the tribal areas) which as per latest instructions issued vide this Department letter of even number dated 3-4-2000 is 8 years as on 31-032000 shall be eligible for regularization. However, in Departments/Corporations/Boards, where the system of the work charge categories also exists, eligible daily wagers will be considered first for bringing them on the work charge category instead of regularization. Such eligible daily waged workers/contingent paid workers will be considered for regularization against vacant posts or by creation of fresh posts and in both these events prior approval of Finance Department will be required as per their letter No. Fin-1-C(7)-1/99 dated 24-12-1999. The terms and conditions for such regularization shall be governed as per Annexure-'A'." 5. Such eligible daily waged workers/contingent paid workers will be considered for regularization against vacant posts or by creation of fresh posts and in both these events prior approval of Finance Department will be required as per their letter No. Fin-1-C(7)-1/99 dated 24-12-1999. The terms and conditions for such regularization shall be governed as per Annexure-'A'." 5. This scheme was in force till a new scheme introduced on 9th June, 2006. The contention of the petitioners is that on completion of 8 years service, as per the scheme extracted above, they are liable to be granted the work-charged status being on a work charged establishment. 5. Learned Senior Additional Advocate General submits that as per the schemes, they have been regularized and since the scheme permits only regularization w.e.f the date of the regularization, the petitioners we not entitled to any further relief it is also contended that in any case, since the petitioners are claiming for a relief which they ought to have claimed in the year 2004, this court will not be justified in granting any relief since the petitioners have not offered any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay. 6. The simple question is whether the delay defeats justice? In analyzing the above issue, it has to be borne in mind that the petitioners are only class-IV workers (Beldars). The schemes announced by the Government clearly provided that the department concerned should consider the workmen concerned for bringing them on the work-charged category. So, there is an obligation cast on the department to consider the cases of the daily waged workmen for conferment of the work-charged status, being on a work-charged establishment, on completion of are required number of years in terms of the policy. At the best, the petitioners can only be denied the interest on the eligible benefits and not the benefits as such, which accrued on them as per the policy and under which policy, the department was bound to confer the status, subject to the workmen satisfying the required conditions. 7. In the above circumstances, these Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case (s) of the petitioners herein for conferment of work-charged status, subject to their eligibility in terms of the policy dated 3.4.2000 and as explained in 6.5.2000 policy as extracted above. 7. In the above circumstances, these Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case (s) of the petitioners herein for conferment of work-charged status, subject to their eligibility in terms of the policy dated 3.4.2000 and as explained in 6.5.2000 policy as extracted above. Needful in this regard shall be done within a period of three months from the date of production of the copy of this judgment by the respective petitioners. Needless to say that the question of conferment of work-charged status does not arise in case the establishment cases to be a work charged establishment and hence the conferment of the status will not arise after the abolition of the work-charged status of the establishment. 8. With these observations, the Writ Petitions are disposed of so also the pending application (s), if any.” 4. Therefore we direct the Director of Animal Husbandry State of Himachal Pradesh (Shimla) to examine the case of the petitioner on facts in the light of the judgment extracted above and confer the eligible benefits on the petitioner. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of production of copy of the judgment by the petitioner. 5. The petition is disposed of so also the pending applications, if any.