Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 828 (HP)

Ram Murthy v. Hp State Forest Corporation

2010-05-17

KURIAN JOSEPH, SURJIT SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT : Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Petitioner has been working in the respondent-Corporation as a Timber Watcher since 1984. He was regularised in service with effect from 31.12.1997. According to the petitioner, his regularisation should have been done in the year 1994, on completion of 10 years continuous service. Alternatively, it is submitted that work charged status should have been conferred on the petitioner and further subject to availability of the post, regularisation should have been made thereafter. 2. One of the relevant instructions is Annexure A/I. It is seen from Annexure A/I, dated 11.7.1995 that daily waged workers had to be considered for regularisation on completion of 240 days in a calendar year, subject to availability of posts. Other instructions issued in the matter of daily waged worker are Annexure R/I, dated 11.12.1997. It is stated therein that: "the daily waged/contingent paid worker shall be regularised on completion of 10 years service (with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year) either against the available vacant posts or, if vacant posts are not available, bu creation of the posts and the terms and conditions for cuh regularisation shall be governed, as per Annexure "A"." 3. Annexure "A" provides for the procedure to be adopted in the matter of regularization. It is stated therein that a Screening Committee shall be constituted to assess the suitability of the candidates concerned for regularization. Claim of the petitioner for regularisation with effect from the date of completion of 10 years service, as per instructions prevailed at the relevant time, depended on the availability of posts. This is not the case of the petitioner that despite availability of post, he was not regularised in service. 4. Contention of the petitioner is that on completion of 10 years service as a daily waged worker, his regularisation had to be made. That instruction came only in the year 1997, as per Annexure R/I, and soon thereafter, the petitioner had been regularised in service. 5. Another contention of the petitioner is that in any case he had to be granted work charged status in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya v. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1994 (2) SLR 377 . 5. Another contention of the petitioner is that in any case he had to be granted work charged status in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya v. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1994 (2) SLR 377 . Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon an undertaking, recorded by this Court on 30.11.1994 in CWP No. 735 of 1984, wherein it is recorded that the Scheme framed by the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyayas case, would apply to the employees of the Corporation, as well. However, it is seen from the affidavits filed by the Corporation thereafter before this Court that the Corporation does not have a Scheme to grant work charged status to the workmen in the Corporation, since it is not a work charged establishment. The issue, whether the Forest Corporation is a work charged establishment, was not considered by this Court in CWP No. 735/1984 and, therefore, the said judgment is rendered subsitentio and does not have a binding precendential value. 6. True, this Court did not have an occasion to consider that question, since a submission had been made in that case that Mool Raj Upadhyayas case would apply to the Corporation as well, but that submission apparently was not made with reference to the factual position as to whether Forest Corporation is a work charged establishment. It is seen from a subsequent decision of this Court dated 1.12.2004 in CWP No. 214 of 2004 that this Court had taken note of the fact that there is no category of work charged workers/employees in the Forest Corporation. The category of employees which exits in the Corporation is regular staff and there is no category of work charged workers or employees. Therefore, we do not find any basis in the contention of the petitioner that he should have been granted the work charged status on completion of 10 years service. What he was entitled to, is regularisation of his service, on completion of 10 years service subject to availability of post and subject to suitability, which has already been done by the Corporation, with effect from 31.12.1997, the date when the post was available. There is, therefore, no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.