Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 226 (HP)

Hari Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2024-04-02

RANJAN SHARMA

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. Mr. Ajit Sharma, Learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This Court had passed a judgment in CWP No.8655 of 2023, decided on 29.02.2024, whereby, this Court had disposed of the writ petition in the following terms:- “15. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner to be in “deemed-continuous service w.e.f. 16.06.2004 till regularization in July, 2009 and thereafter as daily wager till his regularization on 08.06.2017 [Annexure P-10]; and based on such deemed continuous service w.e.f. 16.06.2004, re-consider the case of the petitioner for grant of work charge status or regularization [as the case may be w.e.f. 01.01.2013 or date from which immediate junior was given their benefits, in accordance with the applicable policies, on completion of eight years of continuous service, as the case may be, with all consequential benefits. 16. It is made clear that even if the petitioner has already been regularized in the year 2017, then also, the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for grant of work charge status, from due date on completion of eight years continuous service, with all benefits. However, it is made clear that once the Award was passed on 07.07.2009 [Annexure P-6], but the petitioner has approached this Court in 2023 [i.e. 26.09.2023], therefore, the respondents upon consideration, shall extend all benefits, but actual monetary benefits shall be regulated/restricted for a period of three years only, prior to the filing of the instant writ petition on (26.09.2023), if any, in terms of the mandate of law in case of Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 ; Shiv Dass versus Union of India and Others; (2007) 9 SCC 274 ; State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Yogendra Shrivastava (2010) 12 SCC 538 and Asger Ibrahim Amin Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India (2016) 13 SCC 797 , followed in Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation CA No.4134 of 2022 [2022 SCC Online S C 641] decided on 18.05.2022. 17. In the aforesaid terms, the writ petition as well as the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly. 3. Life Insurance Corporation of India (2016) 13 SCC 797 , followed in Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation CA No.4134 of 2022 [2022 SCC Online S C 641] decided on 18.05.2022. 17. In the aforesaid terms, the writ petition as well as the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly. 3. So far as the findings, recorded in Para 15 of the judgment dated 29.02.2024 the respondents were directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner for grant of work charge status or regularization, as the case may be w.e.f. 01.01.2013 or the date from which the immediate junior was given these benefits, in accordance with the applicable policies, on completion of eight years of continuance service as the case may be with all consequential benefits, the same is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The only contention raised by Mr. Nishant Khidtta, learned counsel for the petitioner, in instant Review Petition is regarding the findings recorded in Para 16 of the judgment dated 29.02.2024; with the plea that instead of restricting the actual monetary benefits/ arrears for a period of three years prior to the filing of CWP No.8655 of 2023, [on 26.09.2023] the petitioner is entitled to all post-arrears of monetary benefits from the date the work charge status/regularization is granted for the reason that after the passing of the Award on 07.07.2009, the petitioner had filed a CWP No.1107 of 2011, decided on 25.11.2011; and had then filed an Execution No.12 of 2015, decided on 02.03.2015 [Annexure P-9] and it is submitted that once the petitioner had been litigating continuously, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to all past arrears of monetary benefits; instead of restricting the arrears for three years prior to the filing of CWP No.8655 of 2023. 5. On considering the prayer made by the Review Petitioner, this Court is of the considered view, that admittedly the Award was passed by the Labour Court on 07.07.2009 and the Review Petitioner had filed the Writ Petition [CWP No.8655 of 2023] after 14 years, which suffers from delay and latches. 5. On considering the prayer made by the Review Petitioner, this Court is of the considered view, that admittedly the Award was passed by the Labour Court on 07.07.2009 and the Review Petitioner had filed the Writ Petition [CWP No.8655 of 2023] after 14 years, which suffers from delay and latches. The plea of the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition earlier [i.e. CWP No.1107 of 2011, decided on 25.11.2011 [Annexure P-7] will not advance the cause/right of the review petitioner to claim post arrears or monetary benefits as the CWP filed in 2011 was decided on 25.11.2011, whereby, the respondents were directed to consider the case for regularization as per the policy. In case, the respondents for reasons known to them, had neither considered nor extended the benefit to the petitioner in terms of the policy then, the petitioner was supposed to invoke the jurisdiction of the appropriate Court(s) in appropriate proceedings. The case records reveal that even after passing of the judgment dated 25.11.2011, the petitioner slept over the matter for almost four years till the filing of the Execution Petition No.12 of 2015 [Annexure P-9] which was also decided on 02.03.2015. 6. The sequence of events, reveal that, even after the decision of the Execution Petition on 02.03.2015 [Execution Petition No.12 of 2015], in case respondents did not comply with the judgment within six weeks i.e. latest by April, 30, 2015 yet the petitioner slept over his rights for almost eight years from 2015 till the filing of the instant of the instant Writ Petition in 2023 i.e. on 26.09.2023. The claim for past arrears is not based on a recurring cause of action but the claim for past arrears had become stale, due to the inaction of the petitioner in sleeping over the matter and in remaining negligent. Accordingly, in terms of the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Tarsem Singh, Shiv Dass, Yogendra Shrivastava, Asger Ibrahim Amin and Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak, as referred to Para 16 of the judgment, this Court had rightly restricted the monetary benefits, for a period of three years, preceding the filing of the CWP No.8655 of 2023 [on 29.06.2023]. 7. Even otherwise, the release of entire past arrears having become stale shall certainly amount to conferring/ extending unwarranted benefits, causing prejudice to the State Authorities also. 8. 7. Even otherwise, the release of entire past arrears having become stale shall certainly amount to conferring/ extending unwarranted benefits, causing prejudice to the State Authorities also. 8. The impugned judgment dated 29.02.2024, has been passed by this Court, after due appreciation of the facts as well as the mandate of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court needs no interference in these proceedings and there is no error apparent on the face of record. In view of above discussion, this Court finds, no merit, in the Review Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, also stands disposed of.