Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 216 (HP)

Jogi Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-02-25

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. CMP No. 2428 of 2025 Allowed and disposed of. CWP No. 7124 of 2021 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 2. Petitioner was appointed in the respondent-Rural Development Department as Daily Wage Peon in May, 1994. His services were regularized on 22.09.2007. Petitioner instituted Civil Writ Petition No. 755 of 2011, which was disposed of on 25.02.2011. The respondent- Department accordingly extended the benefit of work charge status to the petitioner w.e.f. 21.04.2002 to 21.09.2007, i.e. the date prior to petitioner’s regularization on 22.09.2007. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the prayers in this petition only to the extent of counting the period of work charge service rendered by the petitioner for the purpose of grant of pension. Insofar as this relief is concerned, the stand of the respondents is that the work charge employees of the respondent-Department are not entitled for counting of their work charge service towards pensionable service in view of Finance Department instructions dated 27.01.2016 and 19.09.2018. 4. Respondents’ stand for not counting the work charge service rendered by the petitioner towards pensionary benefits cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down by this Court as also by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which has been summarized in Naina Devi vs. State of H.P. & others, CWP No. 2960 of 2020 decided on 9.8.2024 as under:- “7. In State of H.P. and others vs. Sukru Ram and another, CMPM No. 423 of 2017, decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.5.2017, it was held as under: “The issue is no longer res integra, which stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Punjab State Electricity Board and another v. Narata Singh and another, (2010) 4 SCC 317 , as also earlier decision of this Court in CWP No. 2240 of 2008, titled as The State of H.P. and others v. Sh. Tulsi Ram decided on 31.5.2012, in which learned Single Judge, while holding the service rendered by the writ petitioner on work-charged basis from 1.4.2001 to 2.4.2017 to be counted for the purpose of pension” 8. Tulsi Ram decided on 31.5.2012, in which learned Single Judge, while holding the service rendered by the writ petitioner on work-charged basis from 1.4.2001 to 2.4.2017 to be counted for the purpose of pension” 8. Later in State of H.P. & others vs. Matwar Singh & another, CWP No. 2384 of 2018 decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 18.12.2018, it was held as under:- “It is by now well settled that the work charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component of qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. Executive instructions, if any, issued by the Finance Department to the contrary, are liable to be ignored/struck down, in the light of view taken by this Court in CWP No. 6167 of 2017, titled Sukru Ram vs. State of H.P. & others decided on 6th March, 2013. A Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Keshar Chand vs. State of Punjab through the Secretary P.W.D. B & R Chandigarh and others, (1988) 94(2) PLR 223, also dealt with an identical issue where Rule 3.17 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules excluded the work charge service for the purpose of qualifying service. Setting aside the said Rule being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, it was held that the work charge service followed by regular appointment will count towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. The aforesaid view was also confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.” 9. Similarly, in CWP No. 2956 of 2019, decided on 13.7.2021, another Division Bench of this Court observed as under:- “It has also been contended by respondents that the petitioners were granted work charge status only vide order dated 13.10.2015 and the expression used therein was “work charge regularization”. In any case, be it conferment of work charge status or regularization in favour of petitioner vide office order dated 13.10.2015, the same will not affect the outcome of this petition. In view of the law laid down by this Court in CWP No. 6167 of 2017, titled Sukru Ram vs. State of H.P. & Ors., CWP No. 2384 of 2018 titled State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Matwar Singh and also by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Singh Vs. In view of the law laid down by this Court in CWP No. 6167 of 2017, titled Sukru Ram vs. State of H.P. & Ors., CWP No. 2384 of 2018 titled State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Matwar Singh and also by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Singh Vs. State of H.P., (2019) 10 SCC 516 , the work charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component for qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits.” Thus, it is more than settled now that work charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component for qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. 10. It is also apt to reproduce the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-31 of the judgment rendered in case of Prem Singh vs. State of U.P. & others, 2019 (10) SCC 516 , which read as under:- “In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it was unfair on the part of the State Government and its officials to take work from the employees on the work-charged basis. They ought to have resorted to an appointment on regular basis. The taking of work on the work-charged basis for long amounts to adopting the exploitative device. Later on, though their services have been regularized. However, the period spent by them in the work- charged establishment has not been counted towards the qualifying service. Thus, they have not only been deprived of their due emoluments during the period they served on less salary in work-charged establishment but have also been deprived of counting of the period for pensionary benefits as if no services had been rendered by them. The State has been benefited by the services rendered by them in the heydays of their life on less salary in work-charged establishment.” 11. Once the work charge employment of the petitioner is held liable to be counted for the grant of pensionary benefits to her, as a natural corollary, she will be governed under CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and the Contributory Pension Scheme will not be applicable to her.” 5. In view of above, petitioner’s prayer for considering the work charge service rendered by him towards grant of pensionary benefits, has merit and is accordingly accepted. In view of above, petitioner’s prayer for considering the work charge service rendered by him towards grant of pensionary benefits, has merit and is accordingly accepted. Respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider and count the work charge service rendered by the petitioner as qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pension/pensionary benefits to him. Appropriate orders in that regard be passed in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.