Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 438 (HP)

SUDESH PAL RANA v. STATE OF H. P.

2010-03-09

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 Horticulture Department. The petitioners have given their dates of engagement and regularization in the memo of parties. The better course was that such dates should have been given in the main body of the petition, however, the relevant particulars of the petitioners are as follows: 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. They 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 Sr. No. Petitioner Date of engagement Date of regularization 1. Sudesh Pal Rana 24.4.1992 December 7 ,2006 2. Duni Chand April, 1992 Sept. 8, 2003 3. Smrt. Mani Devi May 19,1981 Nov. 25, 1997 4. Hans Raj Sharma June 16, 1992 Dec. 7, 2006 5. Smt. Krishana Devi March 20,1978 1.1.1996 6. Satya Paul Feb. 1, 1988 June 19, 2000 7. Smt. Durga Devi August 16, 1978 January 2, 1996 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. 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 and have submitted that the petitioners were engaged as daily paid labourers in the respondent department and have been regularized against the available vacant posts of Class-IV as per seniority from the prospective dates as per policy framed by the State Government for regularization of daily paid labourers. The work-charge status is not applicable to the respondent department as per the policy in vogue and as such the petitioners cannot be permitted to claim work-charge status contrary to the policies and instructions of the Government. 5. The Govt. of Himachal Pradesh initially framed the policy for regularization of daily paid labourers circulated on 11.7.1995. As per policy the daily waged workers in all the departments (other then Public Works and Irrigation and Public Health Department/ Boards/ Corporation/ Universities etc.) who had completed 10 years or more then continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.3.1995 shall be regularized w.e.f. 1.4.1995 only up to the number of posts available in the respective organization. In continuation to the aforesaid policy certain instructions for regularization of daily waged workers were issued by the State government from time to time. The latest instructions were issued on 9.9.2008. The petitioners stand already regularized with the respondents department. The work charge status is not applicable to the respondents department as per the policy in vogue and therefore work charge status cannot be granted to the petitioners contrary to the policies. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Therefore, taking into consideration fair statement made by learned Dy. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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.