Himachal Pradesh High Court
Mela Ram Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 24 June, 2015
Author: Rajiv Sharma
Bench: Rajiv Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4713/2013 Decided on 24.6.2015 __________________________________________________________________ .
Mela Ram Sharma ............Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ..........Respondents __________________________________________________________________ Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 No. __________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate.
For the Respondents
r : Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Deputy
Advocate General, for the
respondent-State.
Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate,
for respondent No. 2.
__________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge Petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis in the year 1990.
His services were retrenched in the year 1992. He assailed his retrenchment by filing CWP No. 1587/1993. The Court decided CWP No. 1587/1993 and respondents were directed to re-engage the services of the petitioner at the same place from where he was terminated, vide Judgment dated 14.1.1994. Services of the petitioner were transferred from respondent No.2 to respondent-
State on 13.4.2007. Petitioner approached this Court for the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:26:28 :::HCHP 2 redressal of his grievance by filing CWP No. 2648/2012. It was decided in his favour on 27.4.2012.
2. In sequel to Judgment rendered by this Court on .
27.4.2012, petitioner was granted work charge status from the year 2004 instead of the year 2001. Hence, this petition.
3. It is evident from the material placed on record that the petitioner was engaged in the year 1990 and had continuously worked upto the year 2007. Thus, the petitioner ought to have been conferred work charge status in the year 2001 instead of the year 2004. r
4. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.
Respondents are directed to confer work charge status upon the petitioner with effect from 2001 instead of the year 2004. This period shall be counted for the purpose of seniority and pensionery benefits but not for monetary benefits.
Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
(Rajiv Sharma) Judge June 24, 2015 (Vikrant) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:26:28 :::HCHP