Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Hp And Ors vs Sh. Ashwani Kumar on 10 May, 2018
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWP No. 3111 of 2016
Date of Decision: 10.5.2018
State of HP and Ors. .....Petitioners
Versus
.
Sh. Ashwani Kumar ....Respondent
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ranjan Sharma and Mr. Adarsh Sharma,
Additional Advocate Generals.
For the Respondent: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate.
_______
Sandeep Sharma, J. (oral)
Instant writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 30.6.2016, recorded by the learned HP State Administrative Tribunal (in short "the Tribunal"), in OA No. 412 of 2016, whereby the Tribunal below while setting aside order dated 23.6.2014 (annexed with OA as Annexure P-1), directed the appellant-respondent to reconsider case of the applicant-
respondent herein, for conferment of the work charge status on completion of eight years service with all consequential benefits.
2. Facts as emerge from the record are that the respondent, who was engaged as Beldar on daily wage basis in HPPWD, in the year, 1994, after having completed eight years continuous service, prayed for conferment of work charge status in terms of norms laid down by the Government of Himachal 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2018 23:02:35 :::HCHP...2...
Pradesh. Since writ petitioner-State failed to accede to .
aforesaid prayer of the respondent, he approached this Court by way of CWP No. 8852 of 2013, which came to be disposed of with direction to the State to consider the representation filed by the respondent, however fact remains that representation made sequel to aforesaid direction issued by this Court, came to be rejected vide order dated 23.6.2014. Feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied with order dated 23.6.2014, the respondent preferred an application bearing No. OA No. 412 of 2016, before the learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal having taken note of the decision rendered by this Court in CWP No. 4489 of 2009, Ravi Kumar v. State of H.P. and Ors, decided on 14.12.2009, wherein work charge status was ordered to be conferred on daily wagers engaged in the year 1999, arrived at conclusion that the applicant being similarly situate person, deserves to be conferred with work charge status. Learned Tribunal further held that work charge establishment is not a pre-requisite for conferment of work charge status nor conversion of work charge employees into regular employees would make the existence of such establishment non-existent. The learned ::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2018 23:02:35 :::HCHP ...3...
Tribunal below drawing strength from observations/finding .
rendered by this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 titled Rakesh Kumar v. State of HP, dated 28.7.2010, that regularization has no concern with the conferment of work charge status after a lapse of time, proceeded to allow the original application and directed the State to re-consider case of the applicant (respondent) rfor conferment of work charge status on completion of eight years.
3. Having carefully heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused judgment passed by the learned Tribunal, wherein very innocuous direction has been issued to reconsider the case of applicant(respondent) for conferment of work charge status after completion of eight years, this Court finds no justification in filing the present petition on behalf of the petitioner-State, rather it ought to have examined/considered case of the applicant (respondent) for conferment of work charge status in terms of observation made in the impugned judgment and as such, it deserves to be rejected on this sole ground. Otherwise also, material adduced on record clearly suggests that there is no dispute with regard to the completion ::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2018 23:02:35 :::HCHP ...4...
of eight years service as far as respondent is concerned, rather it .
stands duly established on record that respondent, who was appointed on daily wages in the year, 1994, had completed 240 days in each calendar year continuously before completion of eight years.
4. In nutshell, case of the petitioner-State is that the applicant/respondent had worked as Class-III Work Inspector, whose work charge status stood already abolished on 1.4.2011.
As per petitioner-State, in the class-III category, work charge status was abolished in the Public Works Department on 1.4.2011, whereas in Class-IV category, it was abolished on 19.8.2005 and as such, respondent is not entitled for grant of work charge status automatically, when especially he had not completed eight years service, on or before abolition of work charge on 1.4.2011. As per the petitioner-State, respondent was regularized rightly on 21.12.2006, in terms of the Government Regularization Policy dated 9.6.2006.
5. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, while making this Court to peruse the judgment rendered by this Court in Ravi Kumar's case (supra) made an ::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2018 23:02:35 :::HCHP ...5...
attempt to persuade this Court to agree with his contention that .
Ravi Kumar's case pertains to condoning of break period of continuous service, whereas there is no break in the service of applicant/respondent till his regularization. He further stated that after 1.4.2001, when work charge establishment ceased to exist, daily wage service direct regularization was permissible as per policy of the Government that too prospectively and as such, no injustice has been caused to the respondent, rather issue in this regard, stands duly settled in Rakesh Kumar's case, by this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) 8830 of 2011, decided on 15.1.2015.
6. Having carefully perused material available on record, especially judgment rendered by this Court in Ravi Kumar v. State of H.P. and 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 and 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 ::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2018 23:02:35 :::HCHP ...6...
charge status. The Division Bench of this Court while rendering its .
decision in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled Rakesh Kumar decided on 28.7.2010, 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, 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.
7. Subsequent to aforesaid decision, this Court while disposing of CWP No. 2398 of 2016 titled HPSEB and Anr. V. Nanak Chand and Ors, (alongwith connected matters), upheld ::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2018 23:02:35 :::HCHP ...7...
the decision rendered by the learned Tribunal, whereby the .
respondent-electricity board was directed to consider the case of the applicant for conferment of work charge status on completion of ten years of service with all benefits incidental thereto. It may be noticed that decision rendered by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 3207 of 2015 in Narotam Singh v.
HPSEB Ltd. and Ors, dated 14.12.2015, which subsequently came to be assailed in CWP No. 3301/2016, was squarely based upon 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 in CWP No. 9970 of 2012 titled Laxmi Devi v. State of H.P. and ors., decided on 26.11.2012.
8. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel representing the respondent has also brought factum to our notice with regard to the implementation of similar directions as issued in the present case by the various departments pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Tribunal as well as this Court in the case of other similarly situate persons. Mr. Gupta also invited attention of this Court to the judgments having been passed by this Court in ::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2018 23:02:35 :::HCHP ...8...
CWP No.2735 of 2010, dated 28.7.2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar v. State .
of H.P. and others; 13.5.2013, passed in CWP No.1906 of 2013-A, titled as Hira Singh v. HPSEB Ltd. & anr.; 14.8.2014, passed in CWP No.2551 of 2014, titled as H.P. State Electricity Board and another v. Bhag Singh and others; 10.9.2014, passed in CWP No.179 of 2014, titled as Beg Dass and others v. HPSEB Ltd and anr.; and 20.11.2014, passed in LPA No.621 of 2011, titled as H.P. State Electricity Board Limited and others v. Jagmohan Singh, perusal whereof clearly suggests that benefit as prayed for in the instant petition stands duly accorded to other similarly situate persons.
9. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law relied upon, we see no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal and as such, present petition fails and dismissed accordingly.
( Sanjay Karol),
Acting Chief Justice
10th May, 2018 ( Sandeep Sharma ),
Manjit Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2018 23:02:35 :::HCHP