Ramesh Kumar vs State of H.P. and Another

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The petitioners claim conferment of work-charge status in terms of the policy framed by the State Government, on completion of eight years of service. This Court has considered similar issue in CWP No. 1653 of 2008 decided on 21.12.2009, the text of judgment reads as follows:

The petitioner in the petition has prayed directions to respondents to grant him work-charge status from the date he has completed 10 years service as daily wager with all consequential benefits such as fixation of salary, seniority, arrears of back wages. The prayers for quashing Annexure P-4 dated 25.2.2008 has also been made or in the alternative prayer has been made that the respondent No. 1 may be directed to include in the said notification the employees of the other departments also.

The brief facts as per petitioner are that petitioner was engaged as daily wage Chainman on 2.1.1992 and had completed 10 years service with 240 days in each calendar year. He was due for the work-charge status in terms of Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P. and Others, The work-charge status was not given to the petitioner but he was regularized on 15.6.2007 vide Annexure P-2. The policy of the Government of regularization covers all the departments as per Gauri Dutt and Ors. v. State of H.P. Latest H.L.J. 2008(1) 366. The notification dated 25.2.2008 Annexure P-4 giving the benefit to workers in HPPWD and IPH departments only and not to other similarly situated persons is arbitrary and discriminatory.

The respondents have contested the petition and filed reply. They have pleaded that the petitioner was engaged as daily waged chainman on 2.1.1992, his services were regularized on 15.6.2007 as per instructions of the Government dated 9.6.2007 and he joined as such on 19.6.2007. It has been pleaded that contention of the petitioner that he is to be regularized w.e.f. 1.1.2002 is wrong and in violation of the Government instructions. The work-charge status to the petitioner stands nullified in view of submissions made by respondents in the reply. It has been submitted that in Mool Raj Upadhyaya v. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. the department was not party nor any instructions came from the Government to this effect.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. In the reply the respondents have admitted that petitioner was engaged as daily waged chainman on 2.1.1992. In the reply, it has not been denied that petitioner after 2.1.1992 continued to serve the department for 10 years with 240 days in each calendar year. In fact from the petition and reply it emerges that from 2.1.1992 the petitioner continuously served the department without any brake. He has been regularized on 15.6.2007 and joined as such on 19.6.2007.

It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that once the petitioner has been regularized then there is no question of giving work-charge status to the petitioner after rendering 10 years service w.e.f. 2.1.1992. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that work-charge status after 10 years of continuous service has nothing to do with the regularization of the workman. He has submitted that work-charge status and regularization of a workman are two different situations. The work-charge status has some consequential benefits.

In Mool Raj Upadhyaya v. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (supra) the Supreme Court has directed as follows:

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we modify the said scheme by substituting paragraphs 1 to 4 of the same by the following paragraphs:

(1) Daily-wage/muster-roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled, who have completed 10 years or more of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31/12/1993, shall be appointed as workcharged employees with effect from 1/1/1994 and shall be put in the time-scale of pay applicable to the corresponding lowest grade in the government;

(2) daily-wage/muster-roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled, who have not completed 10 years of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31/12/1993, shall be appointed as workcharged employees with effect from the date they complete the said period of 10 years of service and on such appointment they shall be put in the time-scale of pay applicable to the lowest grade in the government;

(3) daily-wage/muster-roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled who have not completed 10 years of service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31/12/1993, shall be paid daily wages at the rates prescribed by the government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time for daily-wage employees falling in Class III and Class IV till they are appointed as work-charged employees in accordance with paragraph 2;

(4) daily-wage/muster-roll workers shall be regularised in a phased manner on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability including physical fitness. On regularisation they shall be put in the minimum of the time-scale payable to the corresponding lowest grade applicable to the government and would be entitled to all other benefits available to regular government servants of the corresponding grade.

It has been contented on behalf of the respondents that the Government has issued no directions for giving effect to the decision of Mool Raj Upadhyaya supra to the department in which the petitioner is serving. In other words the respondents intend to contend that directions in Mool Raj Upadhyaya by the Supreme court are not applicable to other departments and those directions are applicable only to the departments who were before the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya. In Gauri Dutt and Ors. v. State of H.P. Latest H.L.J. 2008(1) 366 precisely this very question has been answered by a Division Bench as follows:

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.

It is thus clear that directions given by the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya are applicable to the department of petitioner where he is serving. The respondents have not denied that after engagement of petitioner as daily wage chainman on 2.1.1992 he continued to serve the department for 240 days in each calendar year for ten years.

The daily-wage/muster roll workers who have not completed ten years of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31.12.1993, shall be appointed as workcharged employees with effect from the date they complete the said period of 10 years service and on such appointment they shall be put in the time-scale of pay applicable to the lowest grade in the government as per para-4(2) of Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya.

The regularization of the petitioner on 15.6.2007 has nothing to do with his entitlement for work-charge status on 2.1.2002 after completion of 10 years of service. The learned Additional Advocate General has not shown any scheme, rule or regulation which debars a workman for work-charge status on completion of ten years of continuous service, as ordered by the Supreme Court, once the workman has been regularized. The work-charge status has some consequential benefits. There is no denial of the fact that workcharge status now can be given to the petitioner only notionally w.e.f. 2.1.2002 as the petitioner has been regularized w.e.f. 15.6.2007, but such notional work-charge status w.e.f. 2.1.2002 shall be with all actual consequential service benefits permissible in law.

No other point was urged.

The result of above discussion, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to give notionally work-charge status to the petitioner w.e.f. 2.1.2002 with all actual consequential service benefits permissible in law and such decision be taken within a reasonable time. The petition stands disposed of with above directions.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are also similarly situate persons. If that be so, it will be open to the petitioners to file appropriate representations before the second respondent in which case the second respondent/ competent authority will consider the matter and take appropriate action thereon within a period of four months thereafter.

With these observations, the writ petitions stand disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.

Copy dasti.