Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 298 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Bhushan Lal

2023-05-24

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, VIRENDER SINGH

body2023
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. CMP(M) No. 1773 of 2022 By medium of this application, the applicants/appellants have sought condonation of 216 days in filing of the appeal. The opposite party has no objection, in case, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, the delay of 216 days in filing of the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. Appeal be registered. LPA No. 96 of 2023 2. The instant Letter Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.03.2022, passed by the learned Writ Court whereby the learned Writ Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein and held him entitled for conferment of work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2007 with all consequential benefits including seniority, pay fixation, counting of service towards pensionary benefits etc. on or before 30.06.2022, failing which, the petitioners were held liable to pay interest @ 7.5% per annum on the arrears of wages from the date of accrual thereof till final payment. 3. The minimal facts as necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the respondent herein filed an Original Application bearing No. 4163 of 2015 before the erstwhile learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to grant him work charge status from the date he completed eight (8) years of service with all consequential benefits incidental thereof in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors. and other connected matters. 4. The appellants contested the petition by filing reply. 5. On abolition of the learned Tribunal, the Original Application was transferred to this Court and registered as CWPOA No. 5596 of 2019 and the same came to be allowed in the aforesaid terms. 6. It is vehemently contended by Shri Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General, that the learned Writ Court fell into error while passing the impugned judgment/order by not considering the observations made in para-7 of the Rakesh Kumar's case (supra), which read as under:- 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. 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 workcharged status does not arise in case the establishment ceases to be a work charged establishment and hence, the conferment of the status will not arise after the abolition of the workcharged status of the establishment. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 7. We find that issue in question is no longer res integra in view of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and other connected matters, wherein it has been categorically held that:- “2. 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 Departments (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. 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. 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.” 3. 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 31-03-2000 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’.” 4. 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 workcharged status being on a work charged establishment. 8. 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 workcharged status being on a work charged establishment. 8. We also find that the issue in question is no longer res integra in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 3111 of 2016, titled as State of HP. & Ors. vs. Sh. Ashwani Kumar, on 10.05.2018, which judgment, in turn, has been considered by another Coordinate Bench of this Court in Letter Patent Appeal No. 160 of 2021, wherein it was observed as under:- 9. After filing of O.A. No. 3109 of 2015, the Division Bench of this Court passed judgment in CWP No.3111 of 2016, titled State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Ashwani Kumar on 10.05.2018 and upheld the order passed by the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal dated 23.06.2014 in O.A. No. 412 of 2016, in the following manner:- “6. Having carefully perused material available on record, especially judgment rendered by this Court in Ravi Kumar v. State of H.P. & Ors., as referred herein above, which has been further upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 33570/2010, titled State of HP & Ors. v. Pritam Singh and connected matters, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that there is no error in the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that work charge establishment is not a pre-requisite for conferment of work charge status. v. Pritam Singh and connected matters, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that there is no error in the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that work charge establishment is not a pre-requisite for conferment of work charge status. The Division Bench of this Court while rendered its decision in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled Rakesh Kumar decided on 28.07.2010, has held that regularization has no concern with the conferment of work charge status after lapse of time, rather Court in aforesaid judgment has categorically observed that while deciding the issue, it is to be borne in mind that the petitioners are only class-IV worker (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 category and as such, there is an obligation cast upon the department to consider the case of daily waged workman for conferment of daily work charge status, being on a work charged establishment on completion of required number of years in terms of the policy. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been specifically held that benefits which accrued on workers as per policy are required to be conferred by the department.” The aforesaid findings rendered by this Court were upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 10. It is in light of aforesaid findings that the impugned judgment has been passed. In the facts of the case Ashwani Kumar (supra), the employer had resisted the claim of employee on the ground that HPPWD had ceased to be a work charge establishment for Class-III employees w.e.f. 01.04.2011 and for Class-IV employees w.e.f. 19.08.2005 and thus, the petitioner therein, who had not completed 8 years' service on or before abolition of work charge establishment was not entitled for grant of status of work charge employee. Hence, the Division Bench of this Court while deciding Ashwani Kumar's case (supra) had held that the work charge establishment is not a prerequisite for conferment of work charge status. 11. Now adverting to the facts of the instant case, the grant of work charge status to late Shri Het Ram has been denied on the ground that Himachal Pradesh Forests Department had no work charge establishment. 11. Now adverting to the facts of the instant case, the grant of work charge status to late Shri Het Ram has been denied on the ground that Himachal Pradesh Forests Department had no work charge establishment. In Ashwani Kumar's case (supra) also right of the petitioner therein for grant of work charge status was considered when the HPPWD had ceased to be a work charge establishment. 12. This Court while delivering judgment in Ashwani Kumar's case (supra) had, thus, decided the principle that work charge establishment was not a pre-requisite for conferment of work charge status and thus, would not confine only to the petitioner in the said case. In view of this, the contention raised on behalf of the appellants that the judgment in Ashwani Kumar's case (supra) was a judgment in personam, cannot be sustained. 9. It would be evident from the perusal of para-12 of Ashwani Kumar's case (supra), that this Court has decided the principle that work-charge establishment was not a prerequisite for conferment of work-charge status. 10. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by this Court, the respondent herein has rightly been held entitled to the benefit of regularization w.e.f. 01.01.2007, when he has completed eight years of service. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.