Chhape Ram vs State of H.P. and Others

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:

(i) That the impugned order dated 24.12.2009 may kindly be quashed and set aside being wrong, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 & 16.

(ii) The Respondents may be directed to allow the Petitioner in the service till the age of 60 years in view of the Notification dated 22.2.2010 issued by the State Govt. (Annexure P-3).

(iii) Direct the Respondent to settle the issue of pension as the Petitioner is entitled for pensionary benefits as his qualifying service becomes 11 years if he continues in the service till the age of 60 years in view of the Notification dated 22.2.2010 issued by the state Govt. (Annexure P-3).

(iv)Direct the Respondents to treat the Petitioner as regularly appointed w.e.f 31.3.2002 in terms of their regularization policy Annexure P-2 and to provide all the consequential benefits to the Petitioner.

As far asthe retirement is concerned, in view of the amendment in the R&P Rules, only those workmen regularly appointed prior to 10.5.2001, will be entitled to continue upto the age of 60 years. Annexure P-3, notification pertains to the continuance of daily waged workers. The Petitioner is not a daily waged worker as on the date of superannuation. He has been regularized in the year 2007. Therefore, he is to superannuate on attaining the age of 58 years as per the R&P Rules. Therefore, interim order dated 2nd June, 2010 is vacated.

As far as the claim made by the Petitioner for regularization on completion of 8 years, in terms of the policy, is concerned, this Court has already held in 2735 of 2010 titled as Rakesh Kumar and Ors. v. State of H.P. and Ors., decided on 28th July, 2010 that regularization/conferment of work charge status should be considered in the light of the policy prevailing at the relevant time. In case the Petitioner is otherwise entitled for regularization/conferment of work charge status on completion of 240 days for 8 years, his case shall be considered in that regard. Needless to say that regularization will depend on the availability of vacancy. In case any junior person who joined service after the Petitioner, has been granted regularization, the Petitioner shall also be entitled to the regularization with effect from that date.

As far as the counting of 50% of the daily waged service for the purpose of pension is concerned, in view of the judgment of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Sarab Dayal in CWP No. 180 of 2001, decided on 19.7.2007, the Petitioner is entitled to the same, of course, depending on the decision in the matter pending before the Apex Court. We make it clear that in case any work has been extracted from the Petitioner, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, for that period, the Petitioner shall be paid the eligible wages. The retirement benefits to the Petitioner shall be settled in the light of this judgment within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the writ petition by the Petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.