Hukam Chand vs State of H.P.

Rajiv Sharma, J.—State has taken a conscious decision on the basis of judgment rendered by the Court in CWP No. 778/2006, titled as State of H.P. vs. Gauri Dutt decided on 29.12.2007 to confer work charge status on those workmen who were engaged prior to 31.12.1993 and have completed 240 days in each calendar year as per the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhayay''s case. The Finance Department created posts for the grant of work charge status from retrospective date on the completion of ten years. The workmen were conferred with work charge status prior to notification dated 10.5.2001 wherein rule 56(b) of Fundamental Rules was amended by reducing the retirement age from 60 years to 58 years. Few of the workmen were paid arrears of wages erroneously.

Petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 24.3.2003 as per 8 years'' policy from prospective date. He has retired on 31.8.2006. His date of birth was 25.8.1948. Since he had worked with 240 days from the year 1986, i.e. prior to 31.12.1993, he was conferred with work charge status with effect from 1.1.1996 vide order dated 26.3.2008. He retired on 31.8.2006. However, a sum of Rs. 2,09,136/- on account of arrears was paid to the petitioner. The fact of the matter is that petitioner has not actually worked with effect from 1.9.2006 to 31.8.2008. The Court in CWP No. 4990 of 2010, titled as Mast Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 29.11.2011 has directed the State to recover such amount in accordance with law from those workmen, who were made irregular payment.

Notice was issued to the petitioner. He was asked to deposit the amount. Since the petitioner has not deposited the arrears, matter was taken up with the Deputy Commissioner to recover the amount by way of land revenue. The petitioner has challenged the decision of the State Government whereby he has been asked to deposit the money and the matter has been taken up with the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi. In fact, the petitioner has not filed reply to the notice issued to him. Petitioner has never worked for two years. He has wrongly been paid the arrears of salary for which he was not legally entitled.

It would be apt at this stage to quote operative portion of judgment rendered in CWP No. 4990 of 2010 decided on 29.11.2011, titled as Mast Ram vs. State of H.P. and others and analogous matters, as under:

"3(v) In case of any of the petitioners, in case their retrospective regularization is prior to 10.5.2001, they shall be deemed to notionally continue in service upto the age of 60 years. In other words, they shall not be entitled to actual wages for the period between 58 and 60. But in such cases, the pay will be re-fixed, the pension will also be re-fixed and the differential benefits on that count, will be disbursed to them within a period of four months on production of a copy of this judgment alongwith an appropriate representation by the petitioner concerned."

Similarly, the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 9363 of 2012-G decided on 1.1.2013, titled as Prem Singh vs. State of H.P. and others and analogous matters, has held as under:

"3. Upon attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years, petitioners were retired on different dates. However, due to subsequent developments, a decision was taken that only those employees, who stood regularized after 10.5.2001 would be made to retire upon attaining the age of 58 years and all other employees were to retire after completing 60 years of age. Under these circumstances, petitioners were recalled and made to join their remaining period of service until they reached the age of 60 years. But even prior to the said decision, some of the petitioners had already crossed this age and actually not worked for the period for which payments were disbursed to them.

Since the petitioners had actually not worked for the period for which payments were released, in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Mast Ram (supra), orders of recovery now stand issued. We do not find any illegality in the action of the respondent-State. Also there is no equity in favour of the petitioners. Not only that, petitioners cannot be allowed to unjustly enrich themselves for the period they had never worked. In fact some of the petitioners did not work as they had already acquired the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. Significantly, petitioners had not challenged the order of their superannuation upon attaining the age of 58 years. The state of its own had decided to accord benefit of regularization and extent the age of superannuation upto 60 years.

However, in the given facts and circumstances, we direct that the amounts in question shall be paid by the petitioner(s)/recovered from them, in equal installments commencing from 1.1.2013 upto 31.12.2014. If the petitioners pay the amount within the aforesaid period, then no interest shall be charged by the respondent-State.

Accordingly, in view of the judgments cited hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. However, taking into consideration that the petitioner belongs to lower strata of society, we direct that the amount in question be recovered from him in 12 equal installments. It is made clear that if the amount is repaid by the petitioner in 12 equal installment, no interest shall be charged from him. However, if the amount is not returned in 12 equal installments, petitioner shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. No costs.