Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 628 (HP)

Rajender Parkash v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-09-22

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2020
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - By way of present petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief(s): "a. That Annexure P-1 may be quashed and the respondents may be ordered to grant work charge status to the applicant from the date he completed 8 years srevice with all the benefits incidental thereof, as per the law laid down in Rakesh Kumar's ad Gauri Dutt's cases. " 2. Precisely the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that petitioner was engaged as a Beldar, on daily wage basis in the respondent-department on 7.10.1994. He admittedly continued to work against this post uninterruptedly for more than 10 years, but his services came to be regularized as Baildar vide Office Order No. 2- 8/79-Udyan-1 dated 17.2.2009, in terms of the policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Since, respondents failed to confer the work charge status upon the petitioner, after completion of his 8 years regular service, he approached this Court by way of filing CWP No. 5185 of 2013, which came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 24.7.2013, whereby, this Court while reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the Department, directed the respondents to consider the same in accordance with law. Since, representation filed before the respondents in terms of the aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 5185 of 2013, came to be rejected vide order dated 5.8.2015, passed by Director of Horticulture, H.P., petitioner was compelled to approach erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal by way of filing O.A. No. 3644 of 2015, which now stands transferred to this Court and reregistered as CWPOA No.5825 of 2019, praying therein for the relief(s) as reproduced herein above. 3. Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties and perused the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, this Court finds that order impugned in the instant proceedings is not sustainable and as such, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Prayer of the petitioner for grant of work charge status has been rejected on the ground that since no work charge establishment exists in the department, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered on the anology of Rakesh Kumar's case. 4. Prayer of the petitioner for grant of work charge status has been rejected on the ground that since no work charge establishment exists in the department, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered on the anology of Rakesh Kumar's case. 4. Respondents, in their reply, have stated that this Court vide judgment dated 28.7.2010, passed in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled Rakesh Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. has directed that the question of conferment of work charge status does not arise in case the establishment ceases to be a work charge establishment. 5. Besides above, respondents have also claimed that the case of the petitioner is not covered under the judgment rendered in Gauri Dutt's case. However, the aforesaid assertions made in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents deserve outright rejection being contrary to law laid down by this Court in Rakesh Kumar's case as well as in Gauri Dutt's case. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1829 of 2007, titled State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. vs. Deep Chand, decided on 30.4.2009, has categorically held that in Gauri Dutt vs. State of H.P., Latest,2008 1 HJL 366, this Court has specifically held that the scheme approved in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case is applicable to all daily-wage employees working in any department of the State and as such, the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents cannot be accepted that the scheme as formulated in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case, does not apply to those employees who had not completed even one year of service as on 31.12.1993 or who were employed thereafter. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 28th July, 2010 in case titled Rakesh Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith other connected matters, passed in CWP No.2735 of 2010, has held that the scheme announced by the Government clearly provides that the department concerned should consider the workmen concerned for bringing them on the work charge category and as such there is obligation cast on the department to consider the case of the daily wage workmen for conferment of the work charged status, being a work charged establishment, on completion of the requisite number of years in terms of the policy. 6. This Court in Rakesh Kumar (supra) has held as under: "6. The simple question is whether the delay defeats justice? 6. This Court in Rakesh Kumar (supra) has held as under: "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 the 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. Subsequently, the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 10.5.2018 passed in CWP No. 3111 of 2016, titled State of HP and Ors. v. Ashwani Kumar, has categorically held that work charge establishment is not a pre-requisite for conferment of work charge status. Besides above, in the aforesaid judgment, Division Bench of this Court has specifically observed that while deciding the issue, it is to be borne in mind that the petitioners are only class-IV workers i.e. Beldars and the schemes announced by the Government, clearly provides that the department concerned should consider the workmen concerned for bringing them on the work charged establishment and as such, there is an obligation cast upon the department to consider the case of daily waged workman for conferment of work charge status, on completion of requisite number of years in terms of the policy. Otherwise also, issue in question stands settled in CWP No. 4489 of 2009, titled Ravi Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors, decided on 14.12.2009, which has been further upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to appeal (C) No. 33570//2010 titled State of HP and Ors. v. Pritam Singh and connected matters. Otherwise also, issue in question stands settled in CWP No. 4489 of 2009, titled Ravi Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors, decided on 14.12.2009, which has been further upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to appeal (C) No. 33570//2010 titled State of HP and Ors. v. Pritam Singh and connected matters. Apart from above, decision rendered by this Court in CWP No. 3301/2016, Narotam Singh v. HPSEBL and Ors is also based upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, (1990) 1 SCC 361 , as well as judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 9970 of 2012 titled Laxmi Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. Leaving everything aside, aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court in Ashwani Kumar's case (supra) has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and respondent No.2 is directed to grant work charge status to the petitioner from the date he had completed eight years of continuous service in the department. Though in the case at hand, petitioner is entitled for grant of work charge status w.e.f. October, 2002, i.e., when he completed eight years regular service from the date of his initial appointment in year 1994, but since he approached Court of law after inordinate delay of 11 years in 2013, by way of CWP No. 5185/2013 which was decided on 24.7.2013, benefits consequent to conferment of work charge status in terms of instant judgment, shall be restricted to three years for the period prior to filing of petition. 9. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms alongwith all pending applications.