Shri Mangat Ram vs H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd.

Justice Sanjay Karol, J.—Petitioner was working as a daily waged employee with the Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation. He was engaged and discharged the duties of a carpenter/saw mill operator. On 16.12.1997, the Service Committee of the Corporation took a decision of regularizing services of daily waged employees, including that of the petitioner. Petitioner has no grievance with regard to the same. But however, his grievance emanates from the decision taken by the Service Committee in the said meeting itself (Annexure P-7), whereby he is accorded pay scale of a Class-IV employee i.e. Peon which is in the pay band of which is in the pay band of Rs. 750 - 1410 in stead of pay scale of Class-III employee which is Rs. 950 - 1800. It is this action of the respondents which, in effect is assailed by the petitioner in the present petition. My attention is invited to the fact that in the Department of Forests, Government of Himachal Pradesh, carpenter is notified as a Class-III post, drawing pay scale of Rs. 950 - 1800 (pre-revised).

Similar issue cropped up for consideration before this Court with regard to the Motivators engaged on daily waged basis in the Department of Him Urja. The issue was decided by Court in terms of judgment dated 5.8.2011 passed in CWP No. 616 of 2010, titled as Bikram Singh versus Him Urja & another, alongwith other similar matters wherein following observations were made:-

The stand taken by the respondents in para 8 appears to be contradictory to the action already taken by them. If petitioners were to be regularized in the "lower post" then obviously office order dated 1.11.2010 (Annexure P-10) is in contravention of their own policy. But that cannot be so. Conscious decision was taken by the respondents to appoint the petitioners as Motivators in category where wages of Class-III employees was to be paid.

For the very same reason other objections with regard to educational qualifications needs to be rejected. If petitioners were not eligible, inasmuch as they were not Matric with 2nd division with Science and two years trade certificate from ITI duly recognized by H.P.S. Technical Board, then obviously their services could not have been regularized and pay scale of Class-III employees accorded to them. The stand with regard to ineligibility, on account of lack of educational qualification, is also untenable in law for the reason that the said eligibility criteria was introduced for the first time, with the amendment of the Rules only in the year 2000. Whereas the services of the petitioners, as Motivators, stood regularized w.e.f. 1.1.1997.

In almost identical situation this Court in CWP(T) No. 3214 of 2008, titled as Sita Ram versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and another, decided on 23.4.2010 after relying upon the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, ; Gujarat Agricultural University Vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar and Others, and B.N. Saxena Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and others, has held that the services of Electrical Fitters ought to be regularized from the date of their initial engagement for the reason that eligibility criteria as on the date of initial engagement is to be seen.

Hence the stand taken by the respondents, being untenable in law needs to be rejected and petitions allowed. Respondents are directed to fix petitioners'' pay in the pay scale accorded to them in terms of Annexure P-10, from the date of their regularization as per Annexure P-4.

All consequential action shall be taken within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment. It is clarified that if amounts, due and admissible, are not released to the petitioners within the aforesaid period, then thereafter, petitioners shall be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. which shall be recovered from the personal salary of the defaulting officers incharge of the matter.

Relying upon the said decision, the Division Bench of this Court passed a separate judgment dated 12.3.2012 in CWP No. 1110 of 2010, titled as Jagdeep Thakur versus Him Urja & another, making the following observations:-

Identical issues were considered by this Court leading to common judgment dated 5th August, 2011 in CWP No. 616 of 2010 along with connected matters of the learned Single Judge. We are informed that the aforesaid judgment has been accepted and implemented. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to extend similar treatment to the petitioner herein also within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the judgment, referred to above, and a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner.

In view of disposal of the main petition, the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

Keeping in view the aforesaid factors and the fact that petitioner has been successfully discharging the duties of a carpenter/saw mill operator, he is entitled to the pay scale of Class-III employee. Duties discharged by the petitioner are onerous and hazardous and cannot be equated with that of a peon. As such, present petition is allowed.

Decision of the Service Committee with regard to fixation of petitioner''s pay scale in the band of Rs. 750 - 1410 is quashed. Consequential order dated 23.1.1998 (Annexure P-8) is also quashed. Respondents are directed to grant benefit of pay scale of Rs. 950 - 1800/- in stead of Rs. 750 - 1410/- to the petitioner from the date when he stands regularized. All consequential action shall positively be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment. It is clarified that if amounts, as may be found due and admissible, are not disbursed to the petitioner within this period, then thereafter, petitioner shall be entitled to interest thereupon @ 9% p.a., which shall be recovered from the personal salary of the defaulting officer(s) incharge of the matter.

With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.