Himachal Pradesh High Court
Smt. Reema Devi vs State Of Hp And Ors on 3 September, 2020
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWPOA No. 5566 of 2019
Decided on: 3.9.2020
.
__________________________________________________________________
Smt. Reema Devi ...........Petitioner
Versus
State of HP and Ors. ..........Respondents
__________________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner : Mr. C.N. Singh and Mr. Devender
Sharma, Advocates, through Video
Conferencing.
For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General,
with Mr. Arvind Sharma, Additional
Advocate General, through Video
r Conferencing.
__________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):
Late husband of the petitioner herein was engaged on daily wage basis as Beldar in the year, 1994 in the forest Division Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. In the year, 2007, services of late husband of the petitioner were regularized in terms of policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh for regularization of daily wage workers. In the year, 2013, husband of the petitioner filed CWP No. 980 of 2013 titled Het Ram v.
State of HP, praying therein for issuance of direction to the respondents to grant him work charge status from the date he had completed eight years regular service in terms of judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2020 20:18:48 :::HCHP 2Court in Mool Raj Upadhaya v. State of HP and Ors., 1994 Supl (2) SCC 316 as well as Division Bench of this Court in case titled Rakesh Kumar v. State .
of HP and Ors in CWP No. 2735 of 2010. Aforesaid petition i.e. CWP No. 980 of 2013 came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 4.3.2013, with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in terms of judgment rendered by this Court in Rakesh Kumar's case (supra), however fact remains that husband of the petitioner was not granted work charge status, but before he could lay challenge, if any, to order dated 17.11.2015 (Annexure A-6) passed by the respondents on his representation pursuant to judgment dated 4.3.2013, passed by the Division Bench in CWP No. 980 of 2013, he died on 24.3.2014 and as such, his wife i.e. petitioner herein, approached the Erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 3109 of 2015, which after abolishment has now been transferred to this Court for adjudication, praying therein for following reliefs:
"(i) 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 within the time bound manner along with 12 % interest.
(ii) That the respondents department may kindly be directed to re-fix the pay of the husband of the ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2020 20:18:48 :::HCHP 3 applicant w.e.f. 1.1.2002 and release the entire arrear on account of re-fixation of pay with in 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 23.3.2014) 12 years under the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 with in the time bound manner alongwith 12% interest for delayed payment.
iv) That the respondents department may kindly be directed to release the gratuity for regular period (i.e. 1.1.20002 to 23.3.2014) to applicant with in time bound manner along with 12% interest for delayed payment.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of work charge status in favour of her husband from the date he had completed eight years regular service, stands rejected. This Court finds from the record that prior to rejection of the case of the petitioner vide order dated 17.11.2015 (Annexure A-6) respondent department had granted similar benefit to two other persons namely Dhani Ram and Narayan Dass as is evident from Annexure A-7 (Colly.). Close scrutiny of aforesaid documents available on record reveals that above named persons had also approached this Court by way of CWPs No. 4094 of 2010 and 4095 of 2010 and this Court vide order ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2020 20:18:48 :::HCHP 4 dated 27.7.2010, had disposed of the petition with direction to the respondents to decide the representations of the petitioners within a .
period of ten weeks from the date of production of the judgment in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhaya's case (supra), State of HP and ors. v. Gehar Singh, (2007) 12 SCC 43 and Gauri Dutt and Ors v. State of HP , latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366. Though representations having been filed by the above named persons in terms of order/judgment dated 27.7.2010 came to be accepted, but representation filed by the petitioner-late Het Ram in terms of order dated 4.1.2013, passed by this Court in CWP No. 980 of 2013 was rejected and as such, petitioner has sought quashment of Annexure A-6 on the ground of discrimination.
3. Since, it is quite apparent from the perusal of order as contained in Annexure A-7 that similarly situate persons have been already granted work charge status on their having completed eight years regular service in the forest department, there is no justification at all to deny the claim as has been raised in the present petition by the petitioner. Moreover, it is well settled by now that work charge status in terms of mandate given in Mool Raj Upadhaya's case is to be granted to all the daily wage workers working in various departments of the State on their having completed eight years regular service.
::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2020 20:18:48 :::HCHP 54. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 10.5.2018 passed in CWP No. 3111 of 2016, titled State of HP and Ors. v.
.
Ashwani Kumar, has categorically held that work charge establishment is not a pre-requisite for conferment of work charge status. Besides above, in the aforesaid judgment, Division Bench of this Court has specifically observed that while deciding the issue, it is to be borne in mind that the petitioners are only class-IV worker i.e. 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 work charge status, on completion of required number of years in terms of the policy. Otherwise also, issue in question stands settled in CWP No. 4489 of 2009, titled Ravi Kumar v. State of H.P. and Ors, decided on 14.12.2009, which has been further upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to appeal (C) No. 33570//2010 titled State of HP and Ors. v. Pritam Singh and connected matters. Apart from above, decision rendered by this Court in CWP No. 3301/2016, Narotam Singh v.
HPSEBL and Ors is also based upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (1990) 1 SCC 361, as well as judgment rendered by this Court ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2020 20:18:48 :::HCHP 6 in CWP No. 9970 of 2012 titled Laxmi Devi v. State of H.P. and Ors. Leaving everything aside, aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court in Ashwani .
Kumar's case (supra) has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
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, alongwith all consequential benefits. In the aforesaid terms, present petition stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.
3rd September, 2020 (Sandeep Sharma),
manjit Judge
::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2020 20:18:48 :::HCHP