This court dismissed two consecutive writ petitions challenging Tribunal orders that granted regularization of services. holding the Tribunal acted strictly in accordance with Mool Raj Upadhyaya, and the issue of work charge status was inapplicable.
The petitions were dismissed and the impugned Tribunal orders were upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
( 2024:HHC:13277 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 2690 of 2018 a/w CWP No.908 of 2020
Decided on: 3.12.2024
H.P. State Forest Corportion Ltd. & another
...Petitioners.
Versus
Tej Singh
…Respondents.
…...Petitioner.
Versus
Tulsi Ram
…. Respondent.
Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Lalita Sharma, Ms. Godawari, Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Mr. Hitansh Raj and Ms. Astha Advocates. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondent i( 2024:HHC:13277 ) n CWP No.2690 of 2018 Mr. Atul Verma, Advocate, for the respondent in CWP No.908 of 2020
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 ( 2024:HHC:13277 )
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
Heard. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner(s) would argue that the impugned order(s) passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable as it had directed the grant of work charge status to the respondents and that too on an establishment which is not a “work charge establishment”. Such directions were contrary to the law.
We find this contention to be without merit for more than one reason. Firstly, the respondent(s) had approached the Tribunal with the relief regarding regularization of their services and secondly it was this relief which had precisely been granted by the Tribunal, whereby directions were issued to the petitioner(s) herein to regularize the services of the respondent(s) from the date they have completed 10 years of service.
The question of the petitioner-Corporation being work charge establishment was neither raised nor arises for consideration. As regards the order of regularization that has been passed by the Tribunal, no exception to the same can be taken, as such, direction has been passed strictly in accordance with the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya versus State of H.P. and others, 1994, Supp (2) SCC 316 which in turn is based upon the policy of the State Government in
3 ( 2024:HHC:13277 )
itself. Accordingly, we find no merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed.
Pending applications,if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Acting Chief Justice
(Satyen Vaidya) 3 rd December, 2024 Judge (veena)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned Tribunal order directing regularization of services by grant of work charge status is sustainable.
Whether the contention that the petitioner corporation is not a work charge establishment affects the validity of the regularization order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mool Raj Upadhyaya versus State of H.P. and othersApplied¶23
**Mool Raj Upadhyaya versus State of H.P. and others, 1994, Supp (2) SCC 316** · Who else cites this
H.P. State Forest Corportion Ltd.
Tej Singh
H.P. State Forest Development Corporation
Tulsi Ram
Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Satyen Vaidya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
