State of H.P. and Others vs Sudhir Singh

Dev Darshan Sud, J.—The only direction issued by the Tribunal in its judgment is that the Respondent be given work charged status on completion of ten years of service. This direction has been issued in consonance with Mool Raj Upadhyay''s case which has affirmed in State of H.P. and Ors. v. Gehar Singh (Civil Appeal No. 1037/2007, decided on 27.2.2007). The learned Tribunal holds:

It is not disputed that the applicant was not engaged from the said date and completed 10 years of service in terms of Mool Raj Upadhyay v. State of H.P. upto 31.12.1999 and become entitled for the status of the work charged from 1.1.2000 and grant of such status to the applicant could not have been denied in view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Mool Raj

Upadhyay v. the State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. 1994(2) SLR 377...............

It is admitted by the Respondent State in their reply that the applicant has completed 10 years of service in terms of Mool Raj Upadhyay v. State of H.P. In view of the law laid down in Mool Raj Upadhyay v. State of H.P. referred to above, the submission of the state is not acceptable because no policy or instructions case supersede the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India. Moreover if the workman having a standing of 8 years has been given the regularization/work charge status then it appears to be highly inn quos to say that the workman of 10 years standing would not be conferred, the said status from the due date. Moreover, the policies framed by the state government are rather to the advantage of the daily wage workmen and the same cannot be read contrary to the law cited supra. In the instant case the applicant has claimed the work charge status only from the date he has completed 10 years of service and for which availability of post is not required. Availability of post will be seen at the time of regularization of a daily waged workman. This Tribunal had the occasion to deal with a similar case titled as Bal Ram v. State of H.P. wherein it was held that the said applicant was entitled to the work charge status from the date when he completed 10 years of daily wage services in terms of Mool Raj Upadhyay v. State of H.P. with all consequential benefits. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent/state preferred a writ petition against the said order before the Hon''ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and all the said pleas which has been taken in reply to the present were also set up before the Hon''ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The said writ petition has been dismissed by the Hon''ble High Court on 16.11.2005, the relevant portion is reproduced as under:

After hearing the learned Counsel, we are of the view that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyay v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (1994(2) SLR 377) and there being no distinction between the present case and the factual position in the matter before the Hon''ble Supreme Court, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal at Shimla. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

The factual matrix is not challenged before us. We find that the direction has been issued in consonance with the law as laid down by the Supreme Court. No judgment over-ruling the directions issued in Mool Raj case supra has been brought to our notice. We find no merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed. There shall be no order as to the costs. All interim orders are vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.