Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P. & Ors vs Gian Singh on 3 December, 2015
Bench: Rajiv Sharma, Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
LPA No.194 of 2015.
Reserved on: 26.11.2015.
.
Decided on: December 3, 2015.
_______________________________________________ State of H.P. & Ors. ...Appellants.
Versus
Gian Singh ...Respondent.
of
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
rt The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.1 _______________________________________________________ For the Appellants: M/s.V.S.Chauhan, Anup Rattan & Romesh Verma, Addl.AGs with Mr.J.K.Verma, Dy.A.G. For the respondent: Nemo.
---------------------------------------------------- Sureshwar Thakur, Judge
1. The instant Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby a direction was rendered to the respondents-appellants herein to regularize the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:25:51 :::HCHPLPA No.194 of 2015.
-2-services of the petitioner with effect from 1.1.2000 with all consequential benefits of pay, seniority and fixation .
of pension besides therein a direction was rendered to the respondents-appellants herein of the services of the petitioner while having come to be untenably of superannuated on his completing 58 years in age whereas with the hitherto daily wage service of the rt petitioner as a Beldar under the appellants herein was enjoined by the mandate fastened upon the appellants herein constituted in Annexure R-1 to be regularized from 1.1.2000 when hence stood infringed necessarily ensuably with the apposite amendment to the fundamental Rules 2001 carried out in 10.5.2001 restricting the age of superannuation of daily waged workers to 58 years was held to be inapplicable qua the respondent herein given his engagement by the appellants herein as a daily wage worker on 1.1.1992 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:25:52 :::HCHP LPA No.194 of 2015.
-3-whereat it hence obviously being inapplicable qua him especially when it had effect onwards 2001 than with .
retrospectivity from 1992. In sequel, the learned Single Judge of this Court held qua from 58 years till 60 years the respondent herein being deemed to be in service of with the concomitant effect of the appellants herein being enjoined to defray to him all consequential rt monetary benefits. The issue at hand before this Court though concerted to be convoluted yet is simple. The entire controversy at hand rests upon the applicability by the appellants herein qua the respondents herein of Annexure R-1 appended to CWP No.7140 of 2012 with a clear stipulation therein of the appellants herein being enjoined to regularize the services of all daily wagers who had completed 8 years or more of continuous services as daily wagers on 31.3.2000. For a daily wager to foist on its anvil a claim for regularization in ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:25:52 :::HCHP LPA No.194 of 2015.
-4-service in the capacity whereat hitherto he was rendering service under his employer on a daily wage .
basis he was also enjoined to manifest the factum of his having rendered a minimum of 240 days of work in each of the calendar years of his continuous service of under his employer from the date of his engagement till his having completed the requisite period of 8 years.
rt Uncontrovertedly, with the respondent herein having stood engaged by the appellants herein as a daily wage Beldar on 1.1.1992 in which capacity there onwards he unintermittently rendered service besides completed 240 days of work in each of the 8 years of his intermittent rendition of service under his employer as a daily wage Beldar up to 31.3.2000 fastened in him an inherent tenable claim to under Annexure R-1 seek regularization of his service in his hitherto capacity as a daily wage Beldar with effect from 31.3.2000. Though, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:25:52 :::HCHP LPA No.194 of 2015.
-5-the appellants herein concede to the factum of theirs having issued Annexure R-1 nonetheless they have yet .
in infraction thereof inasmuch as whereas in consonance therewith the respondent herein stood entitled to stake a claim for regularization in service in of his hitherto capacity as a daily wage Beldar w.e.f.
1.1.2000 given his having completed 8 years of un- rt intermittent service as a daily wage Beldar besides with a minimum of 240 days of service in each of the calendar years of his service as a daily wager commencing from 1.1.1992 up to 31.12.1999, the appellants herein rather bestowed or conferred the benefit of regularization in service upon the respondent herein from his hitherto capacity as a daily wage Beldar under them w.e.f. 1.1.2002. The aforesaid infraction by the appellants herein of the mandate of Annexure R-1 appended to CWP No.7140 of 2012 when undone by a ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:25:52 :::HCHP LPA No.194 of 2015.
-6-well reasoned judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court cannot hence warrant any interference rather .
merits deference by this Court. In sequel, the argument propounded before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellants qua the learned Single Judge of having mis-applied qua the respondent Annexure R-1 appended to the writ petition besides his having not rt appositely applied the decisions encapsulated in the grounds of appeal taken in the Letters Patent Appeal cannot merit its being countenanced by this Court.
Furthermore, with there being no emphatic material on record qua any of the conditions embodied in annxure R-1 having remained unsatiated by the respondent herein for in-eligiblizing him to stake a claim for regularization in service under the appellants in his hitherto capacity as daily wage Beldar emaciates the vigour of the contention of the learned counsel for the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:25:52 :::HCHP LPA No.194 of 2015.
-7-appellants herein of the learned Single Judge of this Court having untenably bestowed upon the respondent .
herein the benefit of regularization in service from his hitherto capacity as a daily wage Beldar w.e.f. 1.1.2000 whereat he had for reasons aforestated acquired the of legal leverage for conferment thereat its benefit in consonance therewith. It appears that the appellants rt herein had taken to by misconstruing the spirit, tone and tenor of Annexure R-1 miscomputed the satiation of conditions enshrined therein on 1.1.2002 and it being the apposite year whereat they stood satiated qua the respondent herein. The misconstruction placed by the appellants upon Annexure R-1 has led it to commit a fallacy in theirs conferring the benefit of regularsiation in service upon the respondent herein in his hitherto capacity as a daily wage Beldar w.e.f.1.1.2002 whereas given the satiation earlier of the parameters enshrined therein ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:25:52 :::HCHP LPA No.194 of 2015.
-8-the respondent herein was rather foisted with a right to seek a claim for regularization in service w.e.f. 1.1.2000 .
as afforded by the learned Single Judge of this Court.
Dehors the above the appellants herein have applied in part the mandate foisted upon them by annexure R-1 of appended to the writ petition, whereas in case they had omnibusly applied qua the respondent herein the fiat rt recorded therein it would not have sequelled gross miscomputation by them qua the date or the year whereat the respondent herein had acquired the right to inconsonance therewith stake a claim for regularisiation of his service in his hitherto capacity as a daily wage Beldar under the appellants herein. The aforesaid reasons anvilled upon the interpretation of annexure R-
1 appended to the writ petition outdo besides silence the effect if any of the judgements relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants especially when they ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:25:52 :::HCHP LPA No.194 of 2015.
-9-appear to be renditions upon entirely distinctive factual matrix vis.a.vis the factual matrix extantly existing.
.
Moreover, with the engagement of the respondent herein as a daily wager in 1992 rendered inapplicable qua him the fetter embodied in the apposite of amendment carried out to the fundamental rules on 10.5.2001 whereby the age of superannuation of daily rt wagers was restricted at 58 years of age moreso when no retrospectivity stood accorded to the amendment aforesaid carried in fundamental rules 2001, for permitting it to take within its purview the induction into service of the respondent herein by the appellants herein as a daily wager in the year 1992 nor for reiteration hence the restriction embodied therein of the services of the petitioner suffering superannuation on his completing 58 years of age is concomitantly un- attractable to him. However, when the petitioner stood ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:25:52 :::HCHP LPA No.194 of 2015.
- 10 -
untenably superannuated from service on his completing 58 years of age whereas he was entitled to .
retire on his completing 60 years of age, the learned Single Judge of this Court did not err in directing the appellants herein to for two years from 58 years to 60 of years whereupto he was entitled to continue in service under them treat him to be in deemed service and of rt the appellants herein being liable to pay him all consequential monetary benefits.
2. In view of the above discussion, the instant letters patent appeal stands dismissed being devoid of any merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. No costs.
(Rajiv Sharma) Judge.
3rd December, 2015. (Sureshwar Thakur), (TM/soni) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:25:52 :::HCHP