Ganesh Dutt vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Sandeep Sharma, J

By way of present petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs:

"(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as daily wage Beldar with effect from January, 1992 and grant work-charge status as per Mool Raj Upadhaya's case with effect from 1.2.2002 with all the consequential benefits.

(ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation after January, 2002, as per the policy of the Government and for further promotion as per the Rule, with all the consequential benefits."

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that prior to filing of the petition at hand, petitioner had approached this Court by way of CWP No. 474 of 2009, laying therein challenge to Award dated 3.12.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla in Ref. No. 22 of 2005. Petitioner was engaged as a Beldar initially in the month of July, 1986 and he continued as such till 31.1.1989, but with intermittent breaks. Since his services were disengaged with effect from February, 1989, he raised a dispute within the meaning of S.10 of the Industrial Disputes Act by way of a claim petition, however, the fact remains that the claim petition having been filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide Award dated 3.12.2008, as such, petitioner was compelled to approach this Court, by way of aforesaid CWP No. 474 of 2009. This Court, vide judgment dated 1.12.2012, while allowing the aforesaid writ petition, set aside aforesaid Award dated 3.12.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla and directed the respondents to re-engage the petitioner as Beldar with continuity and seniority from January, 1992, within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment by the petitioner before the respondents.

After passing of the aforesaid judgment, petitioner came to be reengaged on 30.1.2013 (Annexure P-3) but since he was not extended relief of grant of work charge status after completion of 10 years service, as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyay's case, by way of instant petition, he has prayed for the reliefs reproduced herein above.

Reply having been filed by the respondents clearly reveals that pursuant to judgment dated 1.12.2012, rendered by this Court in CWP No. 474 of 2009, petitioner was re-engaged and case for conferment of work charge status with effect from 1.1.2002 was also sent to the Government, but till date, no decision, whatsoever has been taken qua the aforesaid issue. Though, in the reply, it has been stated that regularisation of the petitioner would depend upon availability of vacancy but learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that during the pendency of the petition, petitioner stands regularized. Since aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 474 of 2009 has attained finality, and it has been fairly admitted by the respondents in their reply that the petitioner is entitled for conferment of work charge status with effect from 1.1.2002, relief prayed for in the instant petition deserves to be granted in favour of the petitioner.

Consequently, in view of above, present petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to grant work charge status of the petitioner with effect from 1.1.2002, if not already granted within a period of four weeks. Needless to say, consequential benefits, if any, on account of conferment of work charge status with effect from 1.1.2002, shall be restricted as per prevailing Government policy.

Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications.