Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shesh Paul vs . State Of H.P. & Anr. A/W Connected ... on 12 September, 2022
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Virender Singh
Shesh Paul vs. State of H.P. & anr. a/w connected matter .
Ex. Petition-Ts No. 30 & 37/2020 12.9.2022 Present: Mr. Mehar Chand Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Mr. K. D. Shreedhar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ashok Sharma, A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Sr. Addl. A.G., Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Mr. Vinod Thakur, Addl. A.Gs., Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Dy.A.G. and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer for t he respondents- State.
Both these execution petitions were disposed of vide order dated 29.9.2020, which reads as under:-
"The only ground taken by the respondents for not implementing the judgment in question is pendency of SLP(C) Nos. 37383-37385 of 2012, titled as The State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Versus Pinju Ram etc. Now, the SLP stands decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 22nd January, 2019. Therefore, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to implement the judgment in question, as modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, within six weeks from today and report compliance to this Court on or before 10.11.2020."
2 The petitioners have a grouse that despite the judgment passed by this Court, the respondents are not implementing the same, whereas on the other hand, the respondent-State would claim that the order passed in favour of the petitioners holds its genesis to the order dated 20.7.2012 rendered by this Court in CWP No. 2494/2012, titled as Pinju Ram vs. State of H.P. & ors., which, in turn, has been partly set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 22.1.2019 in Civil Appeal Nos.
::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2022 20:01:57 :::CIS898-900 of 2019, titled as State of H.P. & anr. Vs. Pinju .
Ram etc. and in terms of such judgment, all the benefits, as due and admissible to the petitioners, have been paid.
3 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record.
4 The petitioners had approached the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal by filing original applications (O.A. Nos. 4962, 4975 & 5379/2016), wherein they prayed for following substantive relief:
That the directions may very kindly be issued to the respondents to grant the daily waged status to the applicant as Revenue Chowkidar immediate after the completion of 10 service as years continuous per the policy and the regularization immediate after the completion of 8 years daily waged services with all the benefits, incidental thereof as per the policy framed by the State Government, within time bound manner, in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court o, Himachal Pradesh on 31.07.2014 in CWP No.7655 of 2013, titled as Chet Ram and others versus State of H.P. and another, Annexure A-3, in the interest of justice."
5 When the aforesaid original applications came up for admission on the first date before the erstwhile Tribunal, it was represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the issue in question is squarely covered by the judgment dated 31.7.2014 rendered by one of us (Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan) in CWP No.7655/2013, titled as Chet Ram & ors. vs. State of H.P. & anr. On such representation, it was stated by the then learned ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2022 20:01:57 :::CIS Additional Advocate General, representing the respondent-
.
State, that subject to verification of records, if it is found that the petitioners are similarly situate as the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, their cases shall also be considered accordingly.
6 Based on the aforesaid representation, the original applications were disposed of with a direction to the respondent-State/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of the judgment in Chet Ram's case (supra).
7 Now, adverting to the order in Chet Ram's case, it would not be noticed that the same was based upon the judgment rendered in Pinju Ram's case as is evident from paras 1 to 5 of the judgment dated 31.7.2014, which read as under:
"The petitioners were initially engaged as part time Revenue Chowkidars and their services were brought on the daily wage establishment w.e.f. 27.2.2004 as all of them had completed more than 8 years of service when the petition was filed.
2. Now, the claim of the petitioners is that in terms of the latest policy of the Government whereby it has been provided that the services of all those employees who have put in seven years of service would be regularised, should be ordered to be regularised. It is further submitted that this inaction on the part of the respondents is in violation of the law laid down by this Court in CWP No. 2494 of 2012-J dated 20 th July, 2012 titled Pinju Ram vs. State of H.P. and is otherwise discriminatory because similarly situated Revenue Chowkidars in Chamba District have been regularised by the Department vide order dated 3.4.2013 w.e.f.::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2022 20:01:57 :::CIS
1.1.2012. Accordingly, it is prayed that the services of the petitioners may also be ordered to be regularised .
w.e.f. 1.1.2012 with all consequential benefits.
3. The respondents have filed the reply wherein it has been contended that the case of the petitioners was evaluated as per the judgment in Pinju Ram's case in a meeting of the Screening Committee held under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu on 6.11.2012 wherein it was found that none of the petitioners was eligible for regularisation since none of them had worked for a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year for a continuous period of 8 years as laid r down in the policy of regularisation by the Department of Personnel dated 30.5.2012.
4. The plea raised by the respondents is without substance as it is totally unsubstantiated because even the manday's chart have not been placed on record so as to enable this Court to verify the genuineness and correctness of this claim, thus calling for adverse inference. Undisputably, the Revenue Chowkidars, who were similarly situate have already been regularized vide office order dated 3.4.2013 on the completion of 8 years of service as daily wagers w.e.f. 1.1.2012. Therefore, there is no reason to deny the said benefit to the petitioners, who are similarly situated.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners w.e.f. 1.1.2012 with all benefits incidental thereof as has been done in the case of Revenue Chowkidars in Chamba District."
8 In order to appreciate the controversy, one will have to refer to the facts of Pinju Ram's case. Pinju Ram was working as Revenue Chowkidar and had filed CWP No. 2494/2012 seeking grant of daily wage status with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 27.2.2004.
::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2022 20:01:57 :::CIS9 Earlier to this, learned Division Bench of this .
Court had disposed of one of the petitions filed by one Moti Singh being CWP No. 2192/2011 seeking conversion from part-time employee to daily wage worker on completion of ten years of service on part-time basis. This petition was disposed of vide order dated 21.4.2011 with a direction to the respondent-State to consider the representation filed by the employee. This Court held as under:-
"2...We make it clear that in case the petitioner is granted daily waged status retrospectively, he shall not be entitled to any consequential monetary benefit in that regard. The period will be counted only for the purpose of his claim for regularization after having worked as a daily wager for 10 years in that manner."
10 It was pursuant to the above directions that the State Government in the Department of Revenue issued instructions dated 22.9.2011, which, inter alia, govern Revenue Chowkidars and provide as follows:
"1. That the amount of wages to daily waged Revenue Chowkidars shall be paid from the date they have actually been appointed and working as full time daily wager in the department.
2. Since the Revenue Chowkidars have worked as part-time prior to their conversion into daily wagers, therefore, they are not entitled to any financial benefit like arrear etc. Attention is also invited to Hon'ble High Court judgment 21.04.2011 passed in a CWP No. 2192 of 2011 titled Moti Singh vs. State and Ors. Where direction has been issued that "in case the petitioner is granted daily waged status retrospectively, ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2022 20:01:57 :::CIS he shall not be entitled to any consequential monetary benefit.
.
3. Seniority to these daily waged Revenue Chowkidars may be granted from the date of completion of 10 years as Part Time workers.
11 On 7.7.2012, the State Government issued further instructions for the conferment of daily wage status on the remaining part-time employees though without financial benefits including the arrears of pay.
12 Subsequently, this Court vide its judgment dated 20.7.2012 allowed the petition filed by Pinju Ram and issued directions to the State Government to the effect that all part-
time Revenue Chowkidars, who had been conferred daily wage status in terms of the policy dated 27.2.2004, should be granted monetary benefits w.e.f. 1.1.2007.
13 This Court also directed that having been conferred with daily wage status, these employees shall be treated at par with all daily wagers in terms of the policy prevailing on the completion of eight years. Consequential benefits were directed to be disbursed within three months, failing which interest at the rate of 9% would ensue.
14 When the special leave petition came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for hearing on 2.1.2013, a statement was made before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on behalf of the Government of Himachal Pradesh that it would confine the challenge only to the question of back wages to persons who are converted to daily wage status.
::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2022 20:01:57 :::CIS15 It was in this background that the Hon'ble .
Supreme Court held that once the State Government decided to bring part-time revenue Chowkidars on daily wage basis with the added stipulation that while their seniority would count from the completion of ten years, this would be without any past financial benefits, this principle was required to be duly followed and, therefore, in such circumstances, the High Court ought not to have issued a direction for the payment of consequential monetary benefits with effect from 1.1.2007.
Accordingly, it was clarified that that the seniority of the part-
time Chowkidars who were granted daily wage status would be counted from the date of completion of ten years as part time Chowkidars without any financial benefits for the past service.
16 We really wonder how the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court forms basis for denial of the financial benefits to the petitioners. After all, the petitioners are not seeking any benefits, which are covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
17 It is evidently clear from the fact that the petitioners, Shesh Paul, Ashok Kumar, Chhotu Ram, were appointed as casual workers in the years 1995 and 1990 respectively and converted as daily wagers in the years 2011 and 2012 and subsequently their services were regularized w.e.f. 15.10.2016, but from the back date i.e. 31.12.2013 & 1.1.2012 respectively. Therefore, in the given circumstances, we are of the considered view that the stand now sought to be ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2022 20:01:57 :::CIS taken and adopted by the respondent-State is not only unfair, .
but contrary to the record.
18 Claim of the petitioners remains unaffected much less adversely affected by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pinju Ram's case.
19 Consequently, we direct the respondent-State to implement the order in question in its letter and spirit and grant financial benefits to the petitioners by paying arrears from the new date of regularization upto 14.10.2016, as mentioned in Annexure R-2 appended with Ex. Pet.
No.30/2020 within a period of 2 months, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum till the date of actual payment.
20 For compliance, list on 21.11.2022.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Virender Singh) Judge 12.9.2022 (pankaj) ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2022 20:01:57 :::CIS .
::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2022 20:01:57 :::CIS