Himachal Pradesh High Court
Smt. Shyama Verma Wife Of Sh. Sanjeev vs State Of H.P. Through The Principal on 17 October, 2022
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
1
`IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ON THE 17th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4429 of 2021
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHYAMA VERMA WIFE OF SH. SANJEEV
VERMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAZARA,
TEHSIL PAONTA SAHIB, DISTRICT SIRMOUR,
H.P. PRESENTLY SERVING AS PART TIME
WORKER UNDER ADA (AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT) DHAULA KUAN, TEHSIL PAONTA
SAHIB, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, H.P.
r ....PETITIONER
(BY MR. BONIT THAKUR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF H.P. THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY ( AGRICULTURE) TO THE GOVT.
OF H.P. WITH HEADQUARTERS AT SHIMLA-
H.P.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE WITH
HEADQUARTERS AT BOILEAUGANJ,
SHIMLA, H.P.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
WITH HEADQUARTERS AT SHIMLA, H.P.
4. THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER DHAULA
KUAN, TEHSIL PAONTA SAHIB, DISTRICT
SIRMOUR, H.P.
....RESPONDENTS
(MR. NARINDER GULERIA, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MS.
SVANEEL JASWAL DEPUTY ADVOCATE
GENERAL AND MR. SUNNY DHATWALIA,
ASSISTANT ADVOCATE GENERAL).
Whether approved for reporting?
::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2022 20:03:40 :::CIS
2
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the
following:
.
ORDER
By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:-
"That the respondents may be ordered to grant daily wage status to the petitioner from the due date with all the benefits incident thereof."
2. Petitioner claims that she was engaged as a Part time worker w.e.f. September, 2012 vide Office order dated 4.9.2012 (Annexure P-1) and since then she has been performing her duties as part time worker continuously without there being any complaint. While claiming that there is no break in her services, petitioner has claimed that she is entitled to be given daily wage status from the due date with all benefits in terms of the policy of conversion from part time worker to daily wage status framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time.
3. Aforesaid claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been refuted by the respondents, who in their reply have categorically denied factum with regard to engagement of the petitioner as part time worker. It has been stated in the reply that Smt. Shyama Verma was initially engaged for cleaning and sweeping work etc. of Soil Testing Lab, Centre Store Dhaula kuan, on quotation basis on equivalent rates approved by the Government for part time workers i.e. Rs. 19/- per hour (4 hour/day) ::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2022 20:03:40 :::CIS 3 applicable from September, 2012. Besides above, it has been further stated in the reply that the services of the petitioner were also co-
.
terminus on year to year basis.
4. Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, learned Deputy Advocate General, while making this Court to peruse Public Notice Annexure R-I, published on 27.06.2012, contended that the quotations were invited for engagement of a person for cleaning and sweeping work of Soil Test Office and Centre Store, Dhaula kuan and at no point of time post of part time sweeper was ever advertised or petitioner was engaged as part time sweeper in the Department, rather while referring to copy of quotations as well as proceedings Annexure R-II and Annexure R-III, learned Deputy Advocate General argued that apart from the petitioner Smt. Shyama Verma, persons namely, Vishal, Bina Devi and Sanjay Kumar, had also submitted their quotations for sweeping and clearing work by giving different rates. Since the rates of the petitioner were lowest, her quotation was approved by the committee at the rate of Rs. 19/- per hour. While admitting that the petitioner is working continuously w.e.f. September, 2012, Ms. Jaswal, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that rates were revised on year to year basis.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that vide Public Notice Annexure R-1, dated 27.06.2012, Deputy Director of Agriculture, called for quotations for cleaning and sweeping work. Pursuant to aforesaid public notice, petitioner as well as other persons named hereinabove ::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2022 20:03:40 :::CIS 4 submitted their quotations and since rates quoted by the petitioner were found to be the lowest, same were approved by the committee for .
cleaning and sweeping work etc. in the office of Soil Testing Lab, Centre Store Dhaulakuan. Having perused the aforesaid Public Notice (Annexure R-1) and office order dated 4.09.2012 (Annexure P-1), whereby sanction for cleaning and sweeping the building of Soil Testing Officer, Laboratory and Centre Store, Dhaula Kuan at the rate of Rs.19/-
per hour on contract from 4.09.2012 to 31.03.2013 was accorded, this Court finds it difficult to agree with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was appointed as part time sweeper and as such, her services are required to be converted from part time to "daily wage" in terms of the policy framed by the Government of H.P. Since, there is no document available on record suggestive of the fact that the petitioner was engaged as part time sweeper and there is material available on record to suggest that the petitioner came to be awarded cleaning and sweeping work on account of her being the lowest bidder, pursuant to public notice dated 27.06.2012, petition filed by the petitioner deserves outright rejection.
6. Though, documents available on record reveal that the petitioner had been continuously providing services of cleaning and sweeping in the Department concerned w.e.f. September, 2012, but as has been taken note hereinabove, reply filed by the respondents clearly reveals that contract of the petitioner was revised on year to year basis and at no point of time, order, if any, with regard to engagement of the ::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2022 20:03:40 :::CIS 5 petitioner as part timer was ever issued, rather her services continued to be governed by the terms and conditions of the quotation furnished by .
her on year to year basis.
7. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly same is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any.
17th October, 2022 (Sandeep Sharma),
(shankar) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2022 20:03:40 :::CIS