State of H.P. and Others vs Roop Lal

Dev Darshan Sud, J.—The State is aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 1711 of 2007.

The Respondent herein had approached the Tribunal on the allegation that he is a daily waged workman who has been a workman since the year 1993, worked continuously and regularized as Stone Breaker on 15.2.2007. His case is that since he has completed ten years of minimum service with 240 days in each calendar year, he is entitled for work charged status w.e.f. 1.1.2002 with all consequential benefits in accordance with law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (1994)2 SLR 377 .

The State has challenged this order on various grounds. The primary challenge is that it is against the law declared by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, Prima facie, considering the facts of the case, we cannot find any such violation of law of the Supreme Court. In-fact, there is nothing on the record to show that Mool Raj Upadhayay''s case has been varied or over-ruled or that pursuant to the judgment in Mool Raj Upadhyaya''s case the policies, which have been framed by the State Government, are un-constitutional and violated any judgment or constitutional provisions. In-fact such regularization, policies etc. only implement the order in Mool Raj Upadhyay''s case.

Reliance is then placed upon the judgment of this Court in Gauri Dutt and Ors. v. State of H.P. Latest HLJ 2008(HP) 366, deciding a number of writ petitions together. This judgment has now been challenged in Sarvjeet v. State of H.P. and Ors., SLP (Civil) No. 20740 of 2008, which was also the subject matter of decision in Gauri Dutt''s case.

This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. It shall abide by the directions of the Supreme Court in appeal mentioned above.