Gian Chand Vs State of Hp and Ors.

¶1

2024:HHC:5467

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 787 of 2024 Decided on: 18.07.2024

¶4

Gian Chand … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram

¶7

*Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay M* Whether approved for repo	*ohan Goel, Judge.* rting?¹
____________________________ For the petitioner :	_________________________ Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents :	Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge	( Oral)

¶8

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is praying for issuance of a direction to the respondents to regularize his service/confer upon him work charge status post completion of 5 years of continuous service, as from the date of his engagement on daily wage basis, in the year 2016, with all consequential benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was earlier engaged by the respondents-Department on daily wage basis in the year 2014, but, his services were terminated. Thereafter, he was again engaged as such on 01.01.2016. Since then, he is continuously working and has completed more than 240 days in each calendar year. In terms of communication dated 21.02.2022, respondent No.3

¶9

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

2

¶11

sent the case of the petitioner alongwith 10 other daily wage workers for regularization in terms of the regularization policy of the State Government, but, as till the time of the filing of the writ petition, no action was taken thereupon, hence the petition. The prayer of the petitioner is that as the Government has now formulated a policy for regularization after 5 years, therefore, a direction be issued to the respondents to either confer upon him the work charge status or order his regularization post completion of 5 years of service as from the year 2016.

¶12

The stand of the State is that as from the year 2016, the petitioner has not been engaged on daily wage basis, but on bill basis that is to say that the bills are raised for the purpose of making good the emoluments that are due to the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled for regularization.

¶13

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith.

¶14

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is serving with the respondents-Department since 2016 continuously by putting in more than 240 days in each calendar. It appears that in order to deny such kind of workmen, the benefits of regularization,

¶15

3

¶16

respondent-State has come with the nomenclature of “bill basis” but, fact of the matter still remains that be it a daily wager or a bill basis worker, he is serving the Department regularly putting in more than 240 days in each calendar. It could be disputed before the Court that at the time when the writ petition was filed in terms of the policy of the State Government in vogue, right of regularization accrued upon a person post completion of 5 years of continuous service. Said policy dated 30.03.2021 on the subject regularization of daily waged workers/contingent paid workers is on record appended with the rejoinder as Annexure P-8.

¶17

This Court of the considered view that the distinction, which is now being created by the respondents- Department between a daily wage worker and a bill base worker is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Be it a daily wage worker or a bill base worker, he is rendering the same service to the Department. Therefore, in the absence of their being any intelligible differentia between a daily wage worker and bill base worker, the classification that has been made by the Department cannot pass the touch stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The right of regularization in terms of the policy of the State Government dated 30.03.2021, cannot be denied to the petitioner simply on the count that now his

¶18

4

¶19

nomenclature is not that of a daily wager, but a bill worker. In case, the petitioner fulfills the criteria of regularization made in Annexure P-8, then, he also has a right to be conferred regularization and the same cannot be defeated simply on the basis of the nomenclature that now stands assigned to him by the respondent.

¶20

Accordingly, in this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to confer work charge status/regularization upon the petitioner in terms of the regularization policy of the State Government dated 30.03.2021 within a period of six weeks from today with all consequential benefits. However, actual monetary benefits shall be restricted three years as from the date of the filing of this writ petition. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Gian Chand v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gian Chand v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar and Another Vs State of Hp and Others

Bir Chand (Deceased) through LRs Thakur Chand and Others Vs Devi chand @ Devi Ram (Deceased through LRs Devi Singh and Others

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Manish Kumar

Gur Lal Vs State of Hp and Another

Trilok Chand Chauhan and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Surinder Singh Vs State of Hp and Others