Vishwa Nath vs State Of HP And Others

Anoop Chitkara, J

Challenging the order of disallowing work charge status by the Director of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh, the employee has come up before this Court.

The petitioner claimed to have been appointed on daily wages basis, with effect from 1.1.1982 with respondent No.3-Department. The petitioner further claimed that he had worked continuously with the respondent-department with 240 days in each calendar year and has completed ten years as on 31.12.1993. He further claimed that he was entitled to get the work charge status w.e.f. 1.1.1994, however, the respondent-department has not given work-charge status to him. The services of the petitioner were regularized on 13.10.1995. He further submitted that due to non-grant of work-charge status, the petitioner suffered loss in the matter of pay fixation and other service benefits. He prayed that work charge status be given to him, from the date when he completed ten years of service with all consequential benefits.

The respondents, in reply, state that the services of the petitioner were regularized and he joined his duties on 13.10.1995. In reply, the respondents supported the dismissal of his claim.

Vide impugned order, Annexure P-1, the Director of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh, denied him conferment of work charge status on the ground that no work charge cadre is available with the Department and, as such, he does not confer with such status.

Challenging the order, Annexure P-1, passed by the Director of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh, the petitioner had filed the petition before the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal.

After abolition of H.P. Administrative Tribunal, the case file was transferred to this Court and registered as CWPOA No.5412 of 2015.

The limited claim of the petitioner is that he was entitled to work charge status on completion of ten years' service as he has worked with the respondent-department with 240 days in each calendar year. A reference to this effect be also made to the order Annexure P-1, which reveals that the petitioner was regularized after completing ten years of service. As far as conferment of work charge status is concerned, the matter is no more res Integra.

The State did not claim the irregularity in his initial recruitment or its process.

In Gauri Dutt v. State of HP, 2007 Law Suit (HP) 397, Division Bench of this Court holds,

[1] By this judgment we are disposing of the aforesaid batch of writ petitions since the following common questions of law arise for decision in these petitions.

Whether the scheme of putting the workers on work charged basis as approved by the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case is applicable to those daily waged employees who had not completed minimum of 240 days of service in a calendar year as on 31st December, 1993?

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, what will be the process of regularization of services of those employees who had not completed 240 days of service in a calendar year as on 31st December, 1993 or had joined service after Ist January, 1994?

Whether the scheme, as approved by the Apex Court, in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case, is only applicable to the employees of the Irrigation and Public Health Department and Public Works Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh or is applicable to all the daily rated employees working under the Government of H.P.?

Where if an employee has rendered service on daily waged basis on 2 separate posts in lower and higher scales, can the employee be given benefit of the service rendered by him in the lower scale and be regularized in the higher scale by combining the two services after 10 years?

[17] Under para 4 of the scheme the State was under an obligation to regularize all daily waged/muster roll workers whether they had joined prior to 31.12.1993 or thereafter. The State has framed a scheme in this behalf on 6th May, 2000. In our opinion those employees who are not governed by the direction given in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case as set out by us above, shall be governed by the scheme of 2000. The second question is answered accordingly.

[18] 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.

The services of the petitioner were regularized with effect from 13.10.1995, following the policy framed by the State Government as applicable to him, however, the petitioner has completed ten years of services on 31.12.1993 with 240 days in each calendar year. The petitioner claimed that since he has completed eight years of service with 240 days in each calendar year, on 31.12.1993, therefore, he was entitled to conferment of the work charge status on and w.e.f. 31.12.1993. Thus, as per the policy applicable at that time and in viewof the law laid down by this Court in Gauri Dutt v. State of HP, CWP 778 of 2006, decided on 29-12-2007, (2007 Law Suit (HP) 397), the petitioner would be entitled to get the work charge status on completion of ten years of service and other incidental and consequential benefits, subject to his fulfilling the terms and conditions of such policy. Therefore, the respondents are directed to verify and grant such benefits, if applicable, within four months from today. All the officials who shall deal with this file shall put a date when they receive/forward the file so that the deadwood is identified in case of any lapse.

Consequently, the present petition is disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.