Tilak Raj v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC2 May 2024CWPOA/6726/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tilak Raj v. State of H.P., CWPOA No. 6726 of 2020, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, decided 02.05.2024 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan & Sushil Kukreja, JJ.). Keywords: Revenue Chowkidars; part-time Class-IV employees; conversion to daily wage status versus regularization; corrigendum dated 29.03.2019; office order dated 15.09.2018; arrears of wages from notional dates of regularization; consequential benefits; Pinju Ram, CWP No. 2494 of 2012 / SLP No. 37383-37385 of 2012; Moti Singh, CWP No. 2192 of 2011; denial of arrears to Kangra district Chowkidars; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Corrigendum dated 29.03.2019 declared not applicable to the petitioners; respondents directed to release arrears of wages w.e.f. the notional dates of the petitioners' regularization with all consequential benefits. Pending applications, if any, also disposed of.

Tilak Raj Vs State of Hp — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the corrigendum dated 29.03.2019, restricting arrears to notional basis, and the Supreme Court's decision in Pinju Ram's SLP apply to the petitioners, whose services were regularized from anterior dates rather than converted to daily wage status. +1 more

¶¶43

Court's answer

The SLP filed by the State against Pinju Ram's case was limited only to the question of payment of daily wages/back wages to persons converted to daily wage status and was not applicable to workmen whose services already stood regularized, as with the petitioners.

¶¶44

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners were admittedly not daily wagers; the Supreme Court judgment in Pinju Ram's case was not applicable to them, since their regularization from an anterior date flowed from office order dated 15.09.2018 (in compliance with Tribunal orders and Pinju Ram) and not from conversion to daily wage status.

¶¶46

Key takeaways

Although the Supreme Court had set aside the order for payment of monetary benefits, that direction applied only to part-time Revenue Chowkidars whose services had been converted to daily wage status, not to Revenue Chowkidars like the petitioners whose services had already been regularized.ratio¶¶47
The petition is allowed and the corrigendum dated 29.03.2019 is held not applicable to the cases of the petitioners.ratio¶¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regularization arrears — Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the Supreme Court's order in the State's SLP arising from Pinju Ram's case, which set aside the direction for monetary benefits w.e.f. 01.01.2007 and confined the State's challenge to back wages of persons converted to daily wage status, had no application to Revenue Chowkidars whose services had already been regularized from anterior dates (office order dated 15.09.2018, issued in compliance with Tribunal orders and Pinju Ram). The corrigendum dated 29.03.2019, reading 'with all consequential benefits' as 'on notional basis', was held not applicable to such regularized employees; the State was directed to release arrears of wages from the notional dates of regularization with all consequential benefits.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

CWPOA No. 6726 of 2020

¶3

Date of decision: 02.05.2024

¶4

Tilak Raj …Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents Co ram

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

¶8

Whether approved for reporting? No.

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath & Mr. Anshul Jairath, Advocates.

¶10

For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Mr. I.N. Mehta, Mr. Y. W. Chauhan, Sr. Addl. A.Gs., Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Mr. Navlesh Verma, Addl. A.Gs. and Mr. Raj Negi, Dy. A.G.

¶11

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

¶12

The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-

¶13

(I) That the impugned corrigendum dated 29.03.2019 may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent that it restricts arrears on account of delayed regularization of the services of the applicants.

¶14

(ii) That the respondents may further be directed to release the arrears of wages to the applicants w.e.f. the notional dates of their regularization.

¶15

The Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal

¶16

Pradesh addressed a communication dated 27.02.2004 to all the

¶17

¶18

Deputy Commissioners and Heads of Departments conveying the decision of the government regarding conversion of part-time Class-IV employees who had completed 10 years of continuous service as on 31.03.2003 in all the departments except Education and Ayurveda, subject to fulfillment of certain terms and conditions.

¶19

One Moti Singh filed CWP No. 2192 of 2011 before this Court and the same was decided vide judgment dated 21.04.2014 wherein it was made clear that the writ petitioner would not be entitled to any consequential monetary benefits, in case, he is entitled for daily wage status with retrospective effect.

¶20

Prior to the decision of the Court, another writ petition came to be filed by one Pinju Ram, which was registered as CWP No. 2494 of 2012 and came to be allowed vide order dated 20.07.2012, wherein directions were issued to the State to treat the Revenue Chowkidars, who had been conferred daily wage status at par with all daily wagers in terms of the policy and consequential benefits be released in his favour w.e.f. 01.01.2007.

¶21

This decision of the High Court in Pinju Ram’s case (supra) was assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of SLP registered as SLP No. 37383-37385 of 2012. When the SLP

¶22

¶23

came up for consideration on the first date of hearing i.e. 02.01.2013, a statement was made to the effect that an SLP was being preferred only limited to the question of payment of back wages to the persons, who had been converted to daily wage status as would be evident from the order dated 02.01.2013, which reads as under:-

¶24

“Mr. Govind Goel, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-State submits that the special leave petition has been filed only limited to the question of payment of backwages to the persions who have been converted to daily wage status.

¶25

In view of the above, issue notice and the direction with regard to grant of consequential benefits shall remain stayed.”

¶26

The SLP preferred by the State was partly allowed and the judgment of this Court was partly set aside regarding the directions of payment of monetary benefits w.e.f. 01.01.2007. While disposing of the civil appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also directed that the State Government would abide by the stipulations that were contained in the communication dated 22.09.2011, whereby restriction was placed on the amount of wages to be paid to daily wage Revenue Chowkidars w.e.f. the date they actually started working as Revenue Chowkidars in the daily wage establishment, which direction, in turn, was based on the decision of this Court in Moti Singh case (supra) .

¶27

¶28

It is averred that the respondents-State had paid the arrears of wages on account of the delayed regularization to the Revenue Chowkidars in District Una, Shimla, Bilaspur, Chamba, Kullu, Mandi, Solan and Sirmaur, whereas the Revenue Chowkidars working in District Kangra have been denied the same benefits by misinterpreting and misreading the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinju Ram’s case (supra) .

¶29

It is urged that once the government had confined the challenge only to the question of back wages to a person, who was converted to daily wage status and the same would not be applied to the case of the petitioners whose services came to be regularized from 15.10.2016 to 29.01.2012 in the case of petitioner No. 1, from 15.10.2016 to 17.05.2012 in the case of petitioner No. 2, from 15.10.2016 to 01.01.2012 in the case of petitioner No. 3 and from 15.10.2016 to 01.01.2012 in the case of petitioner No. 4.

¶30

Thus, impressing upon this Court that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, could not have been applied in the case of the petitioners, when the challenge therein was confined only to the question of back wages to persons, who were converted to daily wage status and not those whose

¶31

¶32

services already stood regularized and were conferred the further benefits of regularization from an anterior date.

¶33

In such circumstances, the office order dated 26.03.2019, passed by the Deputy Commissioner dismissing the representation of one Ram Chand for arrears of pay cannot be sustained. Consequently, the corrigendum dated 29.03.2019, whereby the words “ with all consequential benefits” have now been treated to be read as “ on notional basis” w.e.f. 01.01.2012 or after completion of 8 years of service on daily wager and with actual financial benefits from the date of joining on regular basis has been incorporated also cannot withstand judicial scrutiny.

¶34

The respondents have filed their reply wherein it has been averred that the Hon’ble Supreme Court while passing the final verdict has clearly held that:

¶35

“ Having regard to this background, we are of the view, that once the State Government decided to bring part time Revenue Chowkidar on a daily wage basis with the added stipulation that while their seniority would count from the completion of ten years. This would be without any past benefit, this principal was required to be duly followed.

¶36

In the circumstances, Hon’ble High Court has not taken the spirit of Pinju Ram’s case and has wrongly issued a direction for the payment of consequential monetary benefits with effect from 01.01.2007.

¶37

Such a direction in fact was inconsistent with the observations of the Hon’ble High Court itself in Moti Singh which was decided on 21.04.2011.

¶38

¶39

The direction contained in the impugned order for the payment of monetary benefit with effect from 01.01.2007 shall stand set aside. We clarify that the State Govt. shall abide by the stipulation which are contained in the communication dated 22.09.2011 issued by the Principal Secretary, Revenue in the Department of Revenue which have been noted in earlier part of this judgment.

¶40

The respondent, however, clarify that the seniority of the part time Chowkidars who are granted daily wage status will be counted from the date of completion of 10 years as part time Chowkidars though without any financial benefits for the past.”

¶41

And on the basis of such averments, it is averred that the claim of the petitioners is not maintainable.

¶42

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on records.

¶43

We really wonder how the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court could be used as a pretense to deny the arrears to the petitioners and how the corrigendum dated 29.03.2019 could be issued and applied to the case of the petitioners.

¶44

As noticed above, the SLP that was filed by the State was limited only to the question of payment of daily wages to the persons who have been converted to daily wage status and was not at all applicable to the cases of those of the workmen whose services already stood regularized as was in the case of the petitioners herein.

¶45

¶46

The petitioners admittedly, were not daily wagers and, therefore, the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinju Ram’s case (supra) was not at all applicable in their cases. As observed above, it was by virtue of the office order dated 15.09.2018, which was in compliance to certain orders passed by the learned Tribunal and also the judgment passed by this Court in Pinju Ram’s case (supra) , that the services of the petitioners were regularized from anterior date and it was not a case where the services of the petitioners have been converted to daily wage status.

¶47

No doubt, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had set aside the order for payment of monetary benefits but the said direction was only applicable to the cases of those of the part-time Revenue Chowkidars, whose services had been converted to daily wage status but same was not applicable to the cases of those of the Revenue Chowkidars, like the petitioners, whose services had already been regularized.

¶48

In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated above, we find merit in this petition and the same is accordingly allowed and consequently the corrigendum dated 29.03.2019 is held to be not applicable to the cases of the petitioners herein.

¶49

¶50

Accordingly the respondents are directed to release the arrears of wages to the petitioners w.e.f. the notional dates of their regularization with all consequential benefits.

¶51

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending applications, if any.

¶52

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

¶53

(Sushil Kukreja) 2^nd May, 2024 Judge

¶54

(sanjeev)

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Corrigendum dated 29.03.2019 restricting arrears on account of delayed regularization of services by reading 'with all consequential benefits' as 'on notional basis'; challenged alongside office order dated 26.03.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner dismissing the representation of one Ram Chand for arrears of pay. Issuing authority of the corrigendum not stated in the judgment.¶¶13
29.03.2019
Prior proceeding
Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, by communication dated 27.02.2004 to all Deputy Commissioners and Heads of Departments, conveyed the decision to convert part-time Class-IV employees who had completed 10 years of continuous service as on 31.03.2003 (all departments except Education and Ayurveda), subject to terms and conditions.¶¶18
Prior proceeding
One Moti Singh filed CWP No. 2192 of 2011 before the High Court; decided by judgment dated 21.04.2014 clarifying that the writ petitioner would not be entitled to consequential monetary benefits even if entitled to daily wage status with retrospective effect.¶¶19
Prior proceeding
Writ petition filed by one Pinju Ram, registered as CWP No. 2494 of 2012, was allowed on 20.07.2012; State directed to treat Revenue Chowkidars conferred daily wage status at par with daily wagers per the policy, with consequential benefits released w.e.f. 01.01.2007.¶¶20
Prior proceeding
State assailed the Pinju Ram decision via SLP No. 37383-37385 of 2012; on 02.01.2013 the State stated the SLP was confined to the question of back wages payable to persons converted to daily wage status, and the direction regarding grant of consequential benefits remained stayed.¶¶24
Prior proceeding
The State's SLP was partly allowed: the High Court's direction for payment of monetary benefits w.e.f. 01.01.2007 was set aside; the State was directed to abide by the stipulations in the communication dated 22.09.2011 of the Principal Secretary, Revenue restricting wages of daily wage Revenue Chowkidars from the date they actually started working, a direction based on the Moti Singh decision.¶¶26
Prior proceeding
By office order dated 15.09.2018, issued in compliance with orders of the learned Tribunal and the High Court's judgment in Pinju Ram's case, the services of the petitioners were regularized from an anterior date; it was not a case of conversion to daily wage status.¶¶46
Prior proceeding
Office order dated 26.03.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the representation of one Ram Chand seeking arrears of pay.¶¶33
Prior proceeding
Respondents filed reply relying on the Supreme Court's final verdict in the Pinju Ram litigation to aver that the petitioners' claim is not maintainable.¶¶41

Tilak Raj v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tilak Raj v. State of Hp

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

Devinder Singh Vs State of Hp and Another

Cskhpkv Palampur Vs Vinod Kumar

Dharam Dass Vs State of Hp

Amli Vs State of Hp

Prashant Gaurv Vs State of Hp

Gaurav Kaushal Vs State of Hp