Allowed¶10

Kultar Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Sept 2024CWP/9076/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Conferment of work charge status; work charge establishment not a prerequisite; H.P. Forest Department not a work charge establishment; eight years of daily wage service; quashing of rejection order dated 11.03.2016; retrospective benefit capped at three years prior to CWP No. 2231/2012; reliance on State of H.P. v. Ashwani Kumar, CWP No. 3111 of 2016 (10.05.2018); Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla, 2024; single-judge oral judgment by Bipin Chander Negi, J.

What did the court decide?

Office order dated 11.03.2016 quashed and set aside; respondents directed to grant work charge status from the date the petitioner completed eight years of service on daily wage basis, with attendant benefits restricted to three years prior to the filing of CWP No. 2231/2012. ¶10

Kultar Singh Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to conferment of work charge status. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

Order dated 11.03.2016 is quashed and set aside; the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant work charge status to the petitioner from the date he completed eight years of service on daily wage basis, in terms of the decision in Ashwani Kumar's case.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The rejection of the petitioner's case on the ground that the H.P. Forest Department is not a work charge establishment cannot be sustained, in view of this Court's decision in State of H.P. v. Ashwani Kumar (CWP No. 3111 of 2016, dated 10.05.2018), which held that a work charge establishment is not a prerequisite for conferment of work charge status; that judgment has attained finality and been implemented by the State Government.

¶8

Key takeaways

Benefits consequent to the conferment of work charge status are restricted to three years prior to the filing of CWP No. 2231/2012, since the petitioner had approached the Court through that petition, which was disposed of on 11.04.2012 with a direction to consider his case.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Himachal Pradesh High Court (Bipin Chander Negi, Judge), CWP No. 9076 of 2024, decided 02.09.2024: Petitioner, whose case for conferment of work charge status was rejected vide office order dated 11.03.2016 (Annexure P-1) solely on the ground that the Forest Department, Himachal Pradesh, is not a work charge establishment, had earlier obtained a direction in CWP No. 2231 of 2012 (disposed 11.04.2012) that his case be considered. Holding that such rejection cannot be sustained in view of this Court's decision in State of H.P. v. Ashwani Kumar, CWP No. 3111 of 2016 (dated 10.05.2018) — that a work charge establishment is not a prerequisite for conferment of work charge status, which decision has attained finality and been implemented by the State Government — the Court quashed and set aside the order dated 11.03.2016, allowed the petition, and directed grant of work charge status from the date the petitioner completed eight years of service on daily wage basis, restricting attendant benefits to three years prior to the filing of CWP No. 2231/2012.

¶1

2024:HHC:7799 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 9076 of 2024 Decided on: 02.09.2024

¶2

_____________________________ Kultar Singh Versus	______________ ………	_________ .. Petitioner
State of H.P. and Ors.	……..Re	spondents
_____________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Whether approved for reporting?¹	______________ Negi, Judge	_________
For the petitioners : Mr. Abhy	Ashwani Gupt endra Gupta, Adv	a & Mr. ocates.
For the respondents : Mr. Advo	B.N. Sharma, cate General.	Additional
_____________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge ( oral)	______________	_________

¶3

Heard, counsels for the parties perused the pleadings appended along with the present petition.

¶4

The present petition has been filed seeking conferment of work charge status. The admitted position in the case at hand is that the petitioner on a previous occasion had preferred CWP NO.2231 of 2012 titled as Kultar Chand vs. State of H.P and Others . The same had been disposed of vide judgment dated 11.04.2012 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status.

¶5

In pursuance to the aforesaid, the case of the petitioner has been rejected vide office order dated 11.03.2016 appended along with the present petition as Annexure P-1. From the perusal of the same, it is evident that the case of the present petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground that the Forest

¶6

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

¶7

Department, Himachal Pradesh, is not a work charge establishment.

¶8

The rejection on the ground that the H.P Forest Department is not a work charge establishment cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down by this Court in State of H.P and others Versus Ashwani Kumar in CWP No.3111 of

¶9

2016, dated 10.05.2018. Wherein, it has been specifically held that work charge establishment is not a prerequisite for conferment of work charge status. The aforesaid judgment has also attained finality and has been implemented by the State Government.

¶10

In view thereof, order dated 11.03.2016 is quashed and set aside. In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant work charge status to the petitioner from the date, he had completed eight years of service on daily wage basis in terms of the decision given by this Court in Ashwani Kumar’s case supra.

¶11

Since, in the case at hand, the petitioner had approached this Court for conferment of work charge status by filing CWP No.2231/2012 which was disposed of vide order dated 11.04.2012, wherein, the respondents has been directed to consider the case of the petitioner. Therefore, benefits granted to the petitioner consequent to the conferment of work charge status shall be restricted to three years prior to the filing of CWP No.2231/2012.

¶12

Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms, so

¶13

also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

¶14

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

¶15

September 02, 2024 Ankit

Kultar Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kultar Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Devpal Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Vijay and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

The Principal Secretary Revenue Vs Manohar Lal

Mangal Singh Vs Hpsebl and Others

Bhima Devi Vs State of Hp and Others