Allowed

Jan Dei v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Oct 2023CWPOA/1790/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner claimed regularization or work charge status after completing eight years of service as a tribal area employee. The High Court held she was entitled to regularization effective January 1, 2006, or work charge status if no post was available, excluding back wages but including continuous service calculation for other benefits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be regularized from 01.01.2006 or conferred work charge status if no post available; continuous service to be counted for pensions and increments but back wages denied.

Jan Dei Vs State of Hp — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

CWPOA No. 1790 of 2020

¶3

Date of Decision 7th October, 2023

¶4

_______________________________________________________ Jan Dei …Petitioner Versus State of HP & others ….Respondents_

¶5

Coram

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?

¶8

____________________________ For the Petitioner:	__________________________________ Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the Respondents:	Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Baldev Negi, Additional Advocate General.

¶9

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

¶10

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking

¶11

direction to respondents to offer work charge status/regularization to her on completion of her 8 years service in the year 2005 on the basis of judgment passed in

¶12

CWP No. 2735 of 2010 titled Rakesh Kumar vs. State

¶13

¶14

of HP decided on July 28, 2010, which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, dismissing the SLP, preferred by State. 2 Petitioner, in the tribal area of Himachal Pradesh, was engaged as Class-IV worker (Beldar) on daily wage basis since 1.9.1997 and continued as such till June 2006 and her services were terminated on 1.7.2006. Against her termination, she raised the dispute under Industrial Dispute Act 1947, which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court, Dharamshala, as Reference No.63 of 2010, which was decided on 3.12.2011 in favour of petitioner with direction to respondents to reinstate her in services with all consequential benefits including seniority and continuity, except back wages, from the date of her dis-engagement. The aforesaid verdict of Labour Court was accepted by respondents and petitioner was re-engaged and she continued as such till her regularization in the year 2015. It is also undisputed that petitioner has served for requisite number of days, as required in tribal area i.e. 180 days in each calender year during her actual service and intervening period, during which she remained terminated, has been regularized by the order of Labour Court, which

¶15

¶16

has been accepted by the respondents-State and, as such, petitioner has to be treated in service with requisite number of days in each calender year w.e.f. 1.9.1997. As such, she has completed 8 years on 1.9.2005.

¶17

3 It is the claim of respondents that she was not in service for the requisite period before termination and after re-engagement, in terms of order passed by the Labour Court, she has been regularized in the year 2015 and therefore, claim of petitioner is not sustainable.

¶18

4 It is undisputed that Policy of Regularization formulated by the respondents/State in the year 1999 was modified vide Government Orders dated 3.4.2000 and 6.5.2000 and on the basis of aforesaid orders, it was directed by Division Bench of this High Court in Rakesh Kumar’s case supra, to regularize or confer work charged status upon the daily wage employee on completion of 8 years service on the basis of Policy of State.

¶19

5 In judgment dated 10.5.2018 passed in CWP No. 3111 of 2016 titled State of HP vs. Ashwani Kumar it has been held by Division Bench of this High Court that existence of work charge establishment is not a pre-

¶20

¶21

condition for conferring work charge status on its employees. It is also apt to record that judgment passed in Ashwani Kumar’s case has also attained finality after dismissal of SLP, preferred by the State of HP, by the Supreme Court.

¶22

6 In view of combined reading of aforesaid verdicts rendered in Rakesh Kumar’s and Ashwani Kamar’s cases read with order passed in Reference No. 63 of 2100, petitioner is entitled for regularization or at least conferment of work charge status on completion of 8 years service in the year 2005 and, accordingly, respondents are directed to regularize her services w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and in case of non-availability of post, to confer work charge status upon her from said date i.e. 1.1.2006 and regularize her service on availability of vacancy thereafter. It is also clarified that petitioner shall not be entitled for arrears of back wages from 1.7.2006 till her re-engagement in furtherance to order passed in Reference No 63 of 2010. Other benefits for the said period including counting of service for pensionary benefits and annual increment shall be extended to her notionally by taking into consideration

¶23

¶24

daily wage service, the work charged period as well as regularized service period in terms of above referred judgments and judgments passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017 titled Sunder Singh vs. State of HP and Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022, titled Balo Devi and State of H.P. reported in Latest HLJ 2022 (H.P.)(2) 817.

¶25

7 Whereas, from 1.1.2006 to 30.06.2006 and with effect from her re-engagement till date, she shall be paid on actual basis as expeditiously as possible latest by 31^st January, 2024.

¶26

Petition is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms including all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶27

October 07, 2023 (Vivek Singh Thakur) (ms) Judge

Jan Dei v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jan Dei v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Kaur Vs Rajwant Singh Manta

Balbir Singh Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Santosh Kumari Vs State of Hp

Vikram Singh Vs State of Hp

Hanif Vs State of Hp

Raj Kumar Vs State of Hp