Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh Through vs Sh. Ashwani Kumar Which Was Further ... on 23 May, 2022
Bench: Sabina, Satyen Vaidya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
ON THE 23rd DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.160 OF 2021.
Between:-
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (FORESTS) TO THE
GOVERTNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA.
2. PR. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (HoFF)
TALLAND, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL
PRADESH.
3. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFCER, FOREST
DIVISION, KARSOG, TEHSIL KARSOG,
DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
....APPELLANTS.
(BY MR. ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
ADOVCATE GENERAL)
AND
SMT. REEMA DEVI W/O LATE SH. HET RAM,
VILLAGE JAMMODHAR, POST OFFICE, JASSAL,
TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI,
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
....RESPONDENT.
(NEMO)
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2022 20:05:17 :::CIS
...2...
.
This Letters Patent Appeal coming on for orders this
day, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, delivered the
following:-
JUDGMENT
By way of instant appeal, the appellants have assailed judgment dated 0.3.09.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWPOA No.5566 of 2019.
2. By way of impugned judgement, the learned Single Judge has passed the following order:-
"5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and office order dated 17.11.2015 (Annexure A-6/P-6), is quashed and set aside.
Respondents are directed to grant work charge status to the late husband of the petitioner from the date he had completed eight years of regular service in the department i.e. 1.1.2002, along with all consequential benefits. In the aforesaid terms, present petition ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2022 20:05:17 :::CIS ...3...
stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if .
any."
3. The learned Single Judge besides others relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 10.05.2018 in CWP No.3111 of 2016, titled State of H.P. & Ors.
vs. Sh. Ashwani Kumar which was further upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
4. Shri Ashwani Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General has laid stress on the ground that the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Ashwani Kumar's case (supra) was a judgment in personam, therefore, the learned Single Judge has erred in granting the relief to the respondent herein, by way of impugned judgment.
5. Before adverting to the contention raised on behalf of the appellant, as noticed above, it will be relevant to have brief look at the factual matrix of the case.
6. Late Shri Het Ram, husband of respondent herein was engaged as daily wage Class-IV employee in the Forest Division Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., in 1994. His services were ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2022 20:05:17 :::CIS ...4...
.
regularized w.e.f. 11.09.2007. Late Shri Het Ram, by way of CWP No.980/2013, approached this Court for relief of grant of work charge status in his favour from the date he had completed eight years of daily wage service. CWP No. 980 of 2013 was decided by this Court on 04.03.2013 with a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of judgment passed by this Court in Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others, CWP No.2735 of 2010. Vide order dated 17.11.2015, the Divisional Forest Officer, Karsog Forest Division, rejected the case of late Shri Het Ram in following terms:-
"Whereas, Government of Himachal Pradesh vide its letter No. Fin (Pen) A (3) dated 18/2010 dated 10.07.2015 asked the Pr. Chief Conservator of Forests (HoFF), HP to determine "whether HP Forest Department has work charge establishment or not."
Whereas, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HoFF), HP Shimla-1 constituted a committee vide office order No.605/2015(E-III) dated 3.9.2015 to deliberate and determine "Whether HP Forest Department is a work charge establishment in terms of Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment in Jaswant Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1979)4SCC 440 p 456 or not?" The Committee after due diligence and ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2022 20:05:17 :::CIS ...5...
deliberations submitted its report with the .
recommendation that "The HP Forest Department is not a work charged establishment" and the Govt. of HP has accepted and ratified the recommendations of the committee as conveyed by Addl. Chief Secretary (Forests) to the Govt. of HP vide letter No. FFE-A (B) 17-37/2015 dated 24.09.2015.
Now therefore, taking into consideration that the Forests Department is not a work charged establishment, the claim of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status on completion of 8 years of service, in terms of Hon'ble High Court order dated 28.07.2010 passed in CWP No. 2735/2010- titled as Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of HP & Ors., which has been relief upon by the Honb'ble HP High Court in its judgment dated 4.3.2013 in CWP No. 980/2013- titled as Het Ram Vs State of HP & Ors is hereby considered and rejected because the regularization policy of the Govt. dated 3.4.200 and 6.5.2000 nor the judgment of Hon'ble HP High Court dated 28.07.2010 in CWP No. 2735 of 2010-titled as Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of HP is applicable in this particular case to the extent of grant of work charge status. Accordingly claim is disposed of as not admitted." Thus, the Divisional Forest Officer, Karsog Forest Division, had rested his decision on the report of an internal committee of appellants' department declaring that H.P. Forests Department ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2022 20:05:17 :::CIS ...6...
.
was not a work charge establishment. Shri Het Ram had died on 24.03.2014 i.e. before the passing of the aforesaid rejection order dated 17.11.2015.
7. Respondent herein preferred O.A. No. 3109 of 2015 before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal for grant of following reliefs:-
"i) r to That the respondent department may kindly be directed to grant/release the arrear to the applicant after granting the work charge status/regularization to the husband of the applicant (Het Ram) w.e.f. 1.1.2002 with in the time bound manner along with 12% interest.
ii) That the respondents department may kindly be directed to refix the pay of the husband of the applicant w.e.f. 1.1.2002 and release the entire arrear on account of refixation of pay within time bound manner along with 12% interest.
iii) That the respondents department may kindly be directed to release the pension to applicant (1.1.2002 to 23.03.2014) 12 years under the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 within the time bound manner along with 12 % interest for delayed payment.::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2022 20:05:17 :::CIS
...7...
iv) That the respondents department may kindly .
be directed to release the gratuity for regular period ( i.e. 1.1.2002 to 23.03.2014) to applicant within time bound manner along with 12% interest for delayed payment.' By way of amendment, another relief was added in following terms:-
(viii) That the impugned order dated 17.11.2015 (Annexure A-6) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents department may kindly be directed to grant regularization/work-charge status to the husband of the applicant w.e.f. 1.1.2002 with all consequential benefits and entire arrear on account of retrospective regularization may kindly be ordered to be released in favour of the application."
8. On Abolition of H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, O.A. No. 3109 of 2015 came to be transferred to this Court and registered as CWPOA No. 5566 of 2019.
9. After filing of O.A. No. 3109 of 2015, the Division Bench of this Court passed judgment in CWP No.3111 of 2016, titled State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Ashwani Kumar on 10.05.2018 and upheld the order passed by the H.P. State Administrative ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2022 20:05:17 :::CIS ...8...
.
Tribunal dated 23.06.2014 in O.A. No. 412 of 2016, in the following manner:-
"6. Having carefully perused material available on record, especially judgment rendered by this Court in Ravi Kumar v. State of H.P. & Ors., as referred herein above, which has been further upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 33570/2010, titled State of HP & Ors. v. Pritam Singh and connected matters, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that there is no error in the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that work charge establishment is not a pre-requisite for conferment of work charge status. The Division Bench of this Court while rendered its decision in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled Rakesh Kumar decided on 28.07.2010, has held that regularization has no concern with the conferment of work charge status after lapse of time, rather Court in aforesaid judgment has categorically observed that while deciding the issue, it is to be borne in mind that the petitioners are only class-IV worker (Beldars) and the schemes announced by the Government, clearly provides that the department concerned should consider the workmen concerned for bringing them on the work charged category and as such, there is an obligation cast upon the department to consider the case of daily waged workman for conferment of daily work charge status, ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2022 20:05:17 :::CIS ...9...
being on a work charged establishment on completion .
of required number of years in terms of the policy. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been specifically held that benefits which accrued on workers as per policy are required to be conferred by the department."
The aforesaid findings rendered by this Court were upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
10. to It is in light of aforesaid findings that the impugned judgment has been passed. In the facts of the case Ashwani Kumar (supra), the employer had resisted the claim of employee on the ground that HPPWD had ceased to be a work charge establishment for Class-III employees w.e.f. 01.04.2011 and for Class-IV employees w.e.f. 19.08.2005 and thus, the petitioner therein, who had not completed 8 years' service on or before abolition of work charge establishment was not entitled for grant of status of work charge employee. Hence, the Division Bench of this Court while deciding Ashwani Kumar's case (supra) had held that the work charge establishment is not a pre-
requisite for conferment of work charge status.
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2022 20:05:17 :::CIS...10...
.
11. Now adverting to the facts of the instant case, the grant of work charge status to late Shri Het Ram has been denied on the ground that Himachal Pradesh Forests Department had no work charge establishment. In Ashwani Kumar's case (supra) also right of the petitioner therein for grant of work charge status was considered when the HPPWD had ceased to be a work charge establishment.
12. This Court while delivering judgment in Ashwani Kumar's case (supra) had, thus, decided the principle that work charge establishment was not a pre-requisite for conferment of work charge status and thus, would not confine only to the petitioner in the said case. In view of this, the contention raised on behalf of the appellants that the judgment in Ashwani Kumar's case (supra) was a judgement in personam, cannot be sustained.
13. In light of above discussion, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2022 20:05:17 :::CIS...11...
.
14. All pending applications, if any, also also stand disposed of.
(Sabina) Judge (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 23rd May, 2022.
(jai) ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2022 20:05:17 :::CIS