The Court directed the State to grant work charge status to daily waged Beldars upon completion of eight years of service. Benefits are restricted to three years prior to the filing of the initial OA.
Direction to grant work charge status on completion of 8 years of service with consequential benefits restricted to 3 years before filing of OA No. 1089/2018.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
| CWPOA No. 6487/2020 Decided on: 3.5.2024 |
|---|
| Keshav Ram & anr. …..Petitioners Versus |
| State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. ….Respondents |
| [ Coram: |
| The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. JusticeSushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the petitioner: Ms. Seema K. Guleria, Advocate. |
| For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.Gs. and Mr. Raj Negi, Dy.A.G. for the respondents- State. ____________________________________________________________________ |
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan (oral)
Petitioner No.1 was engaged as daily waged Beldar
on 15.2.1993 while petitioner No.2 was engaged as such on 16.3.1992. On 4.12.2006, the respondents issued office order, thereby regularizing the petitioners against the posts of Beldar. According to the petitioners their services ought to have been regularized prior to 2006 on completion of 8 years of service, therefore, they approached the erstwhile Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1089/2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 20.3.2018 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in light of the judgment rendered by this Court in
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
CWP No. 2735/2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar vs. State of
H.P., decided on 28.7.2010 . The respondents vide impugned order dated 21.2.2019 rejected the case of the petitioners by according following reasons:-
In this regard the direction has been received from competent authority vide letter dated 05.01.2019 and accordingly the applicants were given an opportunity of being heard and accordingly hearing was fixed for 09.01.2019. Both the applicants were present and attended the hearing and represented their statements, wherein they have requested them with 240 days in each calendar years i.e. w.e.f. 01/01/2000 & 01.01.2001. The Assistant Engineer, IPH Sub-Division Koti, Superintendent Grade-II IPH Division Kasumpti Shimla-9 and concerned dealing hand of Water Production Division (SJPNL) Dhalli were also present in the course of hearing. The statement of both the applicants were recorded and kept in record for ready reference. The whole record of the case was gone through in detail. Since the applicants were conferred with work charge status w.e.f.01.01.2003, as per Mool Raj Upadhaya's case/scheme hence they are not entitled to get the benefits under Rakesh Kumar's judgment as it will unsettle the settled position of Law laid down/settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court/High Court HP in the matter of Mool Raj Upadhaya/Gauri Dutt/Gehar Singh case. Hence there seems no merit in the case.
3
2 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners
have filed the instant petition for grant of following substantive
reliefs:-
“(i) That the office order dated 21.02.2019 passed by respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(ii) That the directions may very kindly be issues to the respondents to give the work charged status/regularization to the applicants as Beldar immediate after the completion of 8 years continuous service, with all consequential benefits as per the policy of the State Government and in view of the ratio laid down in the CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar Versus State of H.P. Annexure A- 6 as have been granted to persons junior to applicants who are similarly situated. (iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to produce record pertaining to this case as well as Surinder Kumar and Sh. Paras Ram in whose favour regularization after completion have been given by respondents.”
3 Respondents have filed their reply wherein once again it is averred that the regularization of the petitioners has been settled in light of the judgment passed in Gehar Singh’s case read with judgment passed in Mool Raj Upadhaya vs. State of H.P., 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316, and more over this Court in Gauri Dutt v. State of Himachal Pradesh, HLJ 2008 (HP) 366
case has explained and clarified that the daily waged workers who have worked for minimum of 240 days or more as on
4
31.12.1993 shall be governed under the judgment passed in Mool Raj Upadhayaya’s case (supra) and therefore, the case of the petitioners have been in fact considered only under Mool Raj Upadhayaya’s case judgment on completion of 10 years of daily waged service with 240 days in each calendar year.
4 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties have also gone through the material placed on record.
5 At the outset, it needs to be observed that the so called judgment in Mool Raj Upadhayaya’s case is clearly a misnomer as the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not pass any independent judgment but rather approved policy that had been framed and issued by the State Government with regard to regularization of the services of the daily waged employees with certain modifications. But, then it is equally true that in continuation of earlier policy that was subject matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhayaya’s case which prescribed for 10 years mandatory service as daily wager prior to regularization, the State Government itself issued orders dated 3.4.2000 and 6.5.2000 thereby reducing period from 10 years continuous service to 8 years continuous service.
5
as Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. which judgment in turn was subject matter of LPA No. 165/2021, titled as State of
H.P. vs. Suraj Mani, decided on 12.1.2023 , wherein this
Court held that conferment of work charge status is automatic on completion of 8 years of regular service. It shall be apt to reproduce the relevant observations as contained in paras 52 to 58 of the judgment, which reads as under:-
52. In the present cases, all the daily wage employees are seeking conferment of work charge status on their completion of 8 years service in view of the various Policies framed by the State from time to time. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its decision passed in Mool Raj’s case supra, had modified the Scheme formulated by the State and had observed that the daily wagers who had completed 10 years continuous service with minimum of 240 days in each calendar year, on 31.12.1993, shall be appointed as work charge employees. Admittedly, thereafter as per the amended Policy framed by the State from time to time, the requirement of completion of 10 years continuous service with minimum 240 days in each calendar year, was reduced to 8 years. This Court in Rakesh Kumar’s case supra was dealing with the employees of Irrigation and Public Health Department who had been regularized in service as per the various Schemes announced by the State from time to time. The grievance raised by the petitioners in the said cases was that they should have been granted work charge status before regularization.
6
53. The Division Bench of this Court made reference to the order passed by the Government in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of its order dated 28.7.2010, passed in CWP No.2735 of 2010 titled Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors., and the same read as under:-
“2. The only reference to be made for analyzing the grievance of the petitioners is two orders of the Government. One order is dated 3.4.2000 and other is dated 6.5.2000. Order dated 3.4.2000, reads as follows: “In partial modification of this Department letter of even number dated 8th July, 1999 on the above subject, I am directed to say that the Government has now decided that the Daily Waged/Contingent Paid workers in all the Departments including Public Works and Irrigation and Public Health Departments (other than work-charged categories)/Boards/Corporations/Universities, etc. who have completed 8 years of continuous service (with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year) as on 31-03-2000 will be eligible for regularization. It has further been decided that completion of required years of service makes such daily wager/contingent paid worker eligible for consideration to be regularized and regularization in all cases will be from prospective effect i.e. from the date the order of regularization is issued after completion of codal formalities.
2. In view of the above decision and in order to avoid any litigation and also any hardship to daily wagers departments shall do the regularization based on seniority and they will ensure that senior persons are regularized first rather than regularizing junior persons first.
3. Other terms and conditions like fulfillment of essential qualification as prescribed in R&P Rules, etc. etc. as laid
7
down in this department letter of 8th July, 1999, as referred to above, shall continue to be operative.
4. These instructions may kindly be brought to the notice of all concerned for strict compliance.
5. These instructions have been issued with the prior approval of the Finance Department obtained vide their Dy. No.852, dated 23-03- 2000.”
3. Order dated 6.5.2000, to the extent relevant, reads as follows:
“2. During the process of regularization of daily wagers, various issues and problems relating to these workers concerning their regularization have been brought to the notice of the Government. The Government in order to avoid such confusion or problems has decided to streamline the existing procedure/instructions in order to bring uniformity of procedure in various Departments of the Government. It has, therefore, been decided that henceforth:
(i) Daily Waged/Contingent Paid Workers who have completed required years of continuous service (with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year except where specified other wise for the tribal areas) which as per latest instructions issued vide this Department letter of even number dated 3-4-2000 is 8 years as on 31-03-2000 shall be eligible for regularization. However, in Departments/ Corporations/Boards, where the system of the work charge categories also exists, eligible daily wagers will be considered first for bringing them on the work charge category instead of regularization. Such eligible daily waged workers/contingent paid workers will be considered for regularization against vacant posts or by
8
creation of fresh posts and in both these events prior approval of Finance Department will be required as per their letter No. Fin-1-C(7)-1/99 dated 24-12-1999. The terms and conditions for such regularization shall be governed as per Annexure –‘A’.”
54. It was also noticed by the Division Bench that new Scheme was introduced on 9.6.2006 and on completion of 8 years of service, the employees were liable to be granted work charge status. The Writ Petitions filed by Rakesh Kumar and others were allowed and the Special Leave Petition filed against the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, was dismissed vide order dated 15.1.2015. Thereafter, in Ashwani Kumar’s case supra, this Court upheld the decision passed by the Tribunal, whereby, the daily wage employees had been ordered to be conferred work charge status on completion of 8 years of service. The finding of the Tribunal that work charge establishment was not a prerequisite for conferment of work charge status was upheld by this Court in Ashwani Kumar’s case and the decision given by this Court in Ashwani Kumar’s case was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, many cases have been decided by this Court, basing reliance on the decision given by this Court in Ashwani Kumar’s case and the judgments passed by this Court, have, admittedly, been implemented by the State.
55. Hence, the State, which is expected to act like a model employer and should have rather granted the same relief, as claimed by the respondents and other petitioners being similarly situated qua the daily wagers/petitioners who had approached this Court and decisions have already
9
been passed in their favour, but has rather now argued that the decision given by this Court in Ashwani Kumar’s case supra did not lay down any law and the observations made therein were per incuriam. This leads to the inference that the State/Department has rather adopted a pick and choose Policy. Once, the judgment in Ashwani Kumar’s case supra has been implemented and has attained finality, then the respondents/petitioners who are similarly situated, are liable to be granted the same relief. So far as the observation made by this Court in Rakesh Kumar’s case supra to the effect that the question of conferment of work charge status did not arise in case the establishment ceases to be a work charge establishment, is concerned, the said observation had been made without there being any issue raised in this regard. The decision given in Rakesh Kumar’s case has been admittedly implemented and the petitioners have been granted work charge status on their completion of 8 years of service on daily wage basis. Thus, in that case there was no issue as to whether the establishment was a work charge one or not. Thus, in the present cases, the issue involved already stands settled vide judgment given by this Court in Ashwani Kumar’s case supra which has been followed by this Court time and again and, admittedly, many writ petitions have been decided in terms thereof and the said decisions have been duly implemented. Hence, the State cannot be permitted to take a pick and choose Policy. In the case of Rakesh Kumar supra, this Court had categorically held that the question of delay in the present cases is not to be taken for consideration and can be considered for denial of interest
10
on the eligible benefits and not the benefits as such. Hence, the State cannot be permitted to re-agitate the issue which has already been settled by this Court. Rather, the State should itself grant the relief to the daily wagers by conferring work charge status on them after completion of 8 years of service in terms of their Policies and decisions of this Court.
56. So far as the cases involving Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited are concerned, learned counsel for the Board has placed reliance on the decision of this Court given in CWP No.211 of 2018, titled Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited & others vs. Jagat Singh, wherein, the case of an employee who had been conferred work charge status as a Beldar had claimed that he should be regularized as a Mate on completion of ten years of service. In the said case, it was held that a person who had been working as a Beldar on work charge basis and has been regularized as such, could not claim the relief that he was entitled for conferment of work charge status on the post of Mate as he had accepted his status as work charge Beldar/regular Beldar thereafter. This shows that in the Electricity Board, work charge status is being conferred on the daily wage employees. Hence, the employees working with the Electricity Board and who have completed eight years of service would also be covered by the decision given in Ashwani Kumar’s case supra.
57. In view of the above, the writ petitions filed by the employees are allowed and the respondents are directed to grant work charge status to the employees from the date they had completed eight years of service on daily
11
wage basis in terms of the decision given by this Court in Ashwani Kumar’s case supra. However, benefits consequent to conferment of work charge status in terms of instant judgment shall be restricted to three years for the period prior to filing of petition.
58. The Letters Patent Appeal(s), which have been filed by the respondents/State/employer against the orders passed by learned Single Judge, including LPA No.165 of 2021, as well as writ petitions filed by the respondents/State/ employer against the orders passed by the Tribunal, are dismissed with the clarification that the benefits consequent on conferment of work charge status in terms of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge shall be restricted to three years for the period prior to filing of petition.”
7 No doubt, the issue in question is pending
consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suraj Mani’s case (supra), however that by itself cannot be a ground to deny grant work charge status/regularization to the petitioners on completion of 8 years of service. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the instant petition by directing the respondents to grant work charge status on completion of 8 years of service along with all consequential benefits, however the same shall be subject to SLP filed by the
12
State in Suraj Mani’s case and the arrears/financial benefits shall be payable to the petitioners only for 3 years before filing of O.A. No. 1089/2018 that had been instituted on 19.3.2018. Ordered accordingly. Pending application (s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge
(Sushil Kukreja) 3.5.2024 Judge (pankaj)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether daily waged Beldars can be granted work charge status upon completion of eight years of service.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to consequential benefits capped at three years retrospectively.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P.Explained¶8
CWP No. 2735/2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P.
State of H.P. vs. Suraj ManiReferred¶17
LPA No. 165/2021, titled as State of H.P. vs. Suraj Mani
Mool Raj Upadhaya vs. State of H.P.Distinguished¶19
Mool Raj Upadhaya vs. State of H.P., 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316 · Who else cites this
Gauri Dutt v. State of Himachal PradeshDistinguished¶17
Gauri Dutt v. State of Himachal Pradesh, HLJ 2008 (HP) 366
Gehar Singh's caseExplained¶17
Gehar Singh's case
Ashwani Kumar's caseFollowed¶17
Ashwani Kumar's case
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited & others vs. Jagat SinghDistinguished¶28
CWP No.211 of 2018, titled Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited & others vs. Jagat Singh
Keshav Ram
Unnamed Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh
Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Sushil Kukreja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
