Akalmani vs State Of H.P.And Another

Anoop Chitkara, J

Challenging the order of disallowing work charge status by the Director of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh, the employee has come up before this

Court.

The petitioner claimed to have been appointed on daily wages, with effect from 11.04.1990 with respondent No.2. The petitioner further claimed

that she had worked for 240 days continuously for ten years and, as such, with effect from 01.01.2020, she is entitled to be given work charge status,

which was not granted. She further stated that her services were regularized, with effect from 07.08.2006.

The respondents, in reply, state that the service of the petitioner was regularized, with effect from, 07.08.2006 and she joined her duties as Beldar,

with effect from 19.08.2006.

Vide impugned order, Annexure P-1, the Director of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh, denied her conferment of work charge status on the ground

that no work charge cadre is available with the Department and, as such, she does not confer with such status.

Challenging the order, Annexure P-1, passed by the Director of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh, the petitioner had filed the petition before the

erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal.

In reply, the respondents supported the dismissal of her claim.

After abolition of H.P. Administrative Tribunal, the case file was transferred to this Court and registered as CWPOA No.6159 of 2019.

The limited claim of the petitioner is that she was entitled to work charge status on completion of ten years’ service as Beldar by working 240

days in each calendar year. Whether she has worked for 240 days in each calendar year is the subject matter of scrutiny of the attendance register

and other records, which would be available with the Department because it does not form part of the petition. As far as conferment of work charge

status is concerned, the matter is no more res Integra.

The State did not claim the irregularity in her initial recruitment or its process.

In Gauri Dutt v. State of HP, 2007 LawSuit(HP) 397, Division Bench of this Court holds,

[1] By this judgment we are disposing of the aforesaid batch of writ petitions since the following common questions of law arise for decision in these

petitions.

Whether the scheme of putting the workers on work charged basis as approved by the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case is applicable to

those daily waged employees who had not completed minimum of 240 days of service in a calendar year as on 31st December, 1993?

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, what will be the process of regularization of services of those employees who had not

completed 240 days of service in a calendar year as on 31st December, 1993 or had joined service after Ist January, 1994?

Whether the scheme, as approved by the Apex Court, in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case, is only applicable to the employees of the Irrigation and

Public Health Department and Public Works Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh or is applicable to all the daily rated employees working

under the Government of H.P.?

Where if an employee has rendered service on daily waged basis on 2 separate posts in lower and higher scales, can the employee be given benefit

of the service rendered by him in the lower scale and be regularized in the higher scale by combining the two services after 10 years?

[17] Under para 4 of the scheme the State was under an obligation to regularize all daily waged/muster roll workers whether they had joined prior to

31.12.1993 or thereafter. The State has framed a scheme in this behalf on 6th May, 2000. In our opinion those employees who are not governed by

the direction given in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case as set out by us above, shall be governed by the scheme of 2000. The second question is answered

accordingly.

[18] The State of H.P. has also raised a plea that the scheme in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case is only applicable to the employees of the IPH and PWD

departments of the State of H.P. and is not applicable to other employees. We have already quoted para 6 of the affidavit of Mr. Subramanyam which

clearly shows that the scheme, as presented by the State of H.P. to the Apex Court, was to be applicable to all the daily rated employees in all the

departments in H.P. In view of the affidavit of Mr. Subramanyam, the State cannot now urge that this scheme is not applicable to other departments.

In answer to the third question, it is held that the scheme is applicable to all daily waged employees working in any department of State of H.P.

The petitioner is granted work charge status from the date of her completing ten years of work, subject to completion of 240 days in each calendar

year, as per attendance register(s)/entries following the scheme framed by the State Government on 6th May 2000, and in terms of the judgment of

this Court in Gauri Dutt v. State of HP, CWP 778 of 2006, decided on 29-12-2007, (2007 Law Suit (HP) 397). As per Para-1 of the respondents'

reply, the petitioner's services were regularized in 2006. The petitioner had filed the petition on 21.12.2015. The arrears have to be restricted up to

three years before filing the petition, i.e., up to Dec 2012. But in the year 2012, the petitioner was no more working as a daily wager but was on a

regular post. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any back wages or arrears of wages. However, the petitioner would be entitled to other incidental

and consequential benefits, if any. The respondents are to verify and grant such benefits, if applicable, within four months from today. All the officials

who shall deal with this file shall put a date when they forward the file so that the deadwood is identified in case of any lapse.

Consequently, the present petition is disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.