Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 424 (HP)

HIRA LAL v. STATE OF H. P.

2010-03-08

KULDIP SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J.(Oral)-The learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his reliefs to petitioners to the effect that respondents may be directed to grant the benefit of work-charge status to all the petitioners from the date they have completed 10 years of service with all consequential benefits such as pay fixation, seniority and arrears of pay. 2. The brief facts as per petitioners are that they were engaged as beldars in the Agriculture Department. The petitioner No.1 was engaged on daily wage in the year 1985, he was given work charge status on 1.12.1997. The petitioner No.2 was engaged on 1.1.1984, he was regularized on 1.12.1995. The petitioner No.3 was engaged in February, 1986, he was regularized on 1.12.1997. 3. The further case of the petitioners is that as per Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316, the petitioners were entitled to work-charge status from the dates they had completed 10 years of service. The petitioners No.2,3 were not given the work-charge status instead they were regularized much later on. The petitioners have suffered in the matter of seniority, promotion, pay fixation and pension etc. Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra) is applicable to all the departments. It has been pleaded that after the judgment rendered in Gauri Dutt & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. Latest H.L.J. 2008(1 ) 366, there is no confusion to confine the benefits of work-charged status from the due date of employees of HPPWD and IPH departments only. It has been submitted that as per Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra) all daily waged workmen who had completed 10 years of service upto 31.12.1993 would be given the work-charge status w.e.f. 1.1.1994 and those who shall complete 10 years of service thereafter would be brought on work charged establishment from the date they complete 10 years of service. 4. The respondents have filed reply in which objection of delay has been taken. It has been submitted that the petitioners have been regularized w.e.f. 4.2.1998, 13.10.1995 and 5.2.1998 respectively. The petitioners are working as regular Peon, Clerk, and Chowkidar w.e.f. 5.2.1998, 17.10.1995 and 5.2.1998, therefore, the work charge status on the basis of Mool Raj Upadhyaya is not applicable to the petitioners. The work charge status is only applicable to the establishments having posts of work charged employees. The petitioners are working as regular Peon, Clerk, and Chowkidar w.e.f. 5.2.1998, 17.10.1995 and 5.2.1998, therefore, the work charge status on the basis of Mool Raj Upadhyaya is not applicable to the petitioners. The work charge status is only applicable to the establishments having posts of work charged employees. The petitioners are working as regular Peon, Clerk and Chowkidar with the department; the claim of work charged status is neither justified nor acceptable. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the present case is squarely covered by judgments dated 21.12.2009 passed in CWP No.1653 of 2008 and CWP No.2127 of 2008. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. P.M. Negi learned Dy. Advocate General has stated that to the extent reliefs confined by learned counsel for the petitioners, the present case is covered by judgments dated 21.12.2009 passed in CWP No.1653 of 2008 and CWP No.2127 of 2008. 6. Therefore, taking into consideration fair statement made by learned Dy. Advocate General it is not necessary to go into rival issues raised in the petition and reply. 7. In view of judgments dated 21.12.2009, passed in CWP No.1653 of 2008 and CWP No.2127 of 2008, the respondents are directed to give notionally work-charge status to the petitioners from the dates they are entitled to work-charge status as per Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra) with all actual consequential service benefits permissible in law and such decision be taken within a reasonable time. The petition stands disposed of with above directions.