State of HP and Ors. vs Sh. Ashwani Kumar

Sandeep Sharma, J.

1.Instant writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 30.6.2016, recorded by the learned HP State Administrative Tribunal (in short “the

Tribunalâ€), in OA No. 412 of 2016, whereby the Tribunal below while setting aside order dated 23.6.2014 (annexed with OA as Annexure P-1),

directed the appellant-respondent to reconsider case of the applicant-respondent herein, for conferment of the work charge status on completion of

eight years service with all consequential benefits.

Facts as emerge from the record are that the respondent, who was engaged as Beldar on daily wage basis in HPPWD, in the year, 1994, after

having completed eight years continuous service, prayed for conferment of work charge status in terms of norms laid down by the Government of

Himachal Pradesh. Since writ petitioner-State failed to accede to aforesaid prayer of the respondent, he approached this Court by way of CWP No.

8852 of 2013, which came to be disposed of with direction to the State to consider the representation filed by the respondent, however fact remains

that representation made sequel to aforesaid direction issued by this Court, came to be rejected vide order dated 23.6.2014. Feeling aggrieved and dis-

satisfied with order dated 23.6.2014, the respondent preferred an application bearing No. OA No. 412 of 2016, before the learned Tribunal. Learned

Tribunal having taken note of the decision rendered by this Court in CWP No. 4489 of 2009, Ravi Kumar v. State of H.P. and Ors, decided on

14.12.2009, wherein work charge status was ordered to be conferred on daily wagers engaged in the year 1999, arrived at conclusion that the

applicant being similarly situate person, deserves to be conferred with work charge status. Learned Tribunal further held that work charge

establishment is not a pre-requisite for conferment of work charge status nor conversion of work charge employees into regular employees would

make the existence of such establishment non-existent. The learned Tribunal below drawing strength from observations/finding rendered by this Court

in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 titled Rakesh Kumar v. State of HP, dated 28.7.2010, that regularization has no concern with the conferment of work

charge status after a lapse of time, proceeded to allow the original application and directed the State to re-consider case of the applicant (respondent)

for conferment of work charge status on completion of eight years.

Having carefully heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused judgment passed by the learned Tribunal, wherein very innocuous direction

has been issued to reconsider the case of applicant(respondent) for conferment of work charge status after completion of eight years, this Court finds

no justification in filing the present petition on behalf of the petitioner-State, rather it ought to have examined/considered case of the applicant

(respondent) for conferment of work charge status in terms of observation made in the impugned judgment and as such, it deserves to be rejected on

this sole ground. Otherwise also, material adduced on record clearly suggests that there is no dispute with regard to the completion of eight years

service as far as respondent is concerned, rather it stands duly established on record that respondent, who was appointed on daily wages in the year,

1994, had completed 240 days in each calendar year continuously before completion of eight years.

In nutshell, case of the petitioner-State is that the applicant/respondent had worked as Class-III Work Inspector, whose work charge status stood

already abolished on 1.4.2011. As per petitioner-State, in the class-III category, work charge status was abolished in the Public Works Department on

1.4.2011, whereas in Class-IV category, it was abolished on 19.8.2005 and as such, respondent is not entitled for grant of work charge status

automatically, when especially he had not completed eight years service, on or before abolition of work charge on 1.4.2011. As per the petitioner-

State, respondent was regularized rightly on 21.12.2006, in terms of the Government Regularization Policy dated 9.6.2006.

Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, while making this Court to peruse the judgment rendered by this Court in Ravi

Kumar’s case (supra) made an attempt to persuade this Court to agree with his contention that Ravi Kumar’s case pertains to condoning of

break period of continuous service, whereas there is no break in the service of applicant/respondent till his regularization. He further stated that after

1.4.2001, when work charge establishment ceased to exist, daily wage service direct regularization was permissible as per policy of the Government

that too prospectively and as such, no injustice has been caused to the respondent, rather issue in this regard, stands duly settled in Rakesh

Kumar’s case, by this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C) 8830 of 2011, decided on 15.1.2015.

Having carefully perused material available on record, especially judgment rendered by this Court in Ravi Kumar v. State of H.P. and Ors, as

referred herein above, which has been further upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to appeal (C) No. 33570//2010 titled State of

HP and Ors. v. Pritam Singh and connected matters, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that there is no error in the finding recorded by the

learned Tribunal that work charge establishment is not a pre-requisite for conferment of work charge status. The Division Bench of this Court while

rendering its decision in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled Rakesh Kumar decided on 28.7.2010, has held that regularization has no concern with the

conferment of work charge status after lapse of time, rather Court in aforesaid judgment has categorically observed that while deciding the issue, it is

to be borne in mind that the petitioners are only class-IV worker (Beldars) and the schemes announced by the Government, clearly provides that the

department concerned should consider the workmen concerned for bringing them on the work charged category and as such, there is an obligation

cast upon the department to consider the case of daily waged workman for conferment of daily work charge status, being on a work charged

establishment on completion of required number of years in terms of the policy. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been specifically held that benefits

which accrued on workers as per policy are required to be conferred by the department.

Subsequent to aforesaid decision, this Court while disposing of CWP No. 2398 of 2016 titled HPSEB and Anr. V. Nanak Chand and Ors,

(alongwith connected matters), upheld the decision rendered by the learned Tribunal, whereby the respondent-electricity board was directed to

consider the case of the applicant for conferment of work charge status on completion of ten years of service with all benefits incidental thereto. It

may be noticed that decision rendered by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 3207 of 2015 in Narotam Singh v. HPSEB Ltd. and Ors, dated 14.12.2015,

which subsequently came to be assailed in CWP No. 3301/2016, was squarely based upon decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in

Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (1990) 1 SCC 361, as well as judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 9970

of 2012 titled Laxmi Devi v. State of H.P. and ors., decided on 26.11.2012.

Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel representing the respondent has also brought factum to our notice with regard to the implementation of similar

directions as issued in the present case by the various departments pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Tribunal as well as this Court in the

case of other similarly situate persons. Mr. Gupta also invited attention of this Court to the judgments having been passed by this Court in CWP

No.2735 of 2010, dated 28.7.2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar v. State of H.P. and others; 13.5.2013, passed in CWP No.1906 of 2013-A, titled as Hira

Singh v. HPSEB Ltd. & anr.; 14.8.2014, passed in CWP No.2551 of 2014, titled as H.P. State Electricity Board and another v. Bhag Singh and

others; 10.9.2014, passed in CWP No.179 of 2014, titled as Beg Dass and others v. HPSEB Ltd and anr.; and 20.11.2014, passed in LPA No.621 of

2011, titled as H.P. State Electricity Board Limited and others v. Jagmohan Singh, perusal whereof clearly suggests that benefit as prayed for in the

instant petition stands duly accorded to other similarly situate persons.

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law relied upon, we see no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed

by the learned Tribunal and as such, present petition fails and dismissed accordingly.