Himachal Pradesh High Court
Krishan Chand And Ors vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors on 31 August, 2020
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWPOA No. 5460 of 2019
Decided on: 31.8.2020
.
__________________________________________________________________
Krishan Chand and Ors. ...........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. ..........Respondents
__________________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner : Mr. Surender Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General
with Sudhir Bhatnagar and Arvind
Sharma, Additional Advocates General.
__________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):
All the petitioners, save and except petitioner No. 7 Sh.
Dorje Gibao, were initially engaged on daily wage basis as Beldar between year 1993 to 1998. Petitioner No. 7 was appointed as Work Inspector (Class-III) on daily wage basis on 15.7.1994. Since services of the petitioners were not regularized and they were not conferred work charge status after their having completed requisite years of service, they approached the Erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 2647 of 2015, praying therein for following main reliefs:
(a) That the present application may very kindly be allowed and further the respondents may be directed to regularize the services of the applicants strictly on the completion of eight years of services with all consequential benefits in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. as rendered in Rakesh Kumar 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2020 20:18:17 :::HCHP 2
v. State of HP (Annexed as Annexure A-2) and also in view of the Judgment dated 23.4.2015 passed in CWP No. 1044 of 2015, titled as Jai Singh v. State of H.P. .
(annexed as Annexure A-3)."
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioners No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 12 have been already granted work charge status in terms of judgment dated 23.4.2015 rendered by this Court in CWP No. 1044 of 2015, Rakesh Kumar v. State of H.P. and as such, their grievance stands duly addressed. Reply filed by the respondents reveals that petitioner No.1 was engaged as Beldar (Class-IV) on 20.4.1997, respondent No. 7 as Work Inspector class-III on 15.7.1994, respondent No.10 as Beldar (Class-IV) on 7.7.1997 and respondent No.11 as Beldar Class-IV on 20.5.1998 on daily wage basis, respectively, in the IPH Sub Division Kaza. Since work charge establishment ceased to exist in the IPH Department on 19.6.2001, claim of the petitioners for grant of work charge status could not be considered for the reason that by the aforesaid date i.e. 19.6.2001, none of them had completed requisite period. However, it clearly emerges from the reply filed by the respondents that services of the petitioners No. 1, 7, 10 and 11 now stand regularized in terms of policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh for regularization on their having completed eight years regular service.
::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2020 20:18:17 :::HCHP 33. Consequently, in view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present petition and accordingly same is disposed of.
.
However liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate court of law qua the surviving grievance, if any. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
31st August, 2020 (Sandeep Sharma),
manjit Judge
r to
::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2020 20:18:17 :::HCHP