Akalmani vs State Of H.P.And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 3429 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWPOA No.6159 of 2019

.

                                                      Reserved on:28.07.2021
                                                      Date of Decision: 03.08.2021





    Akalmani                                                            ...Petitioner





                                   Versus

    State of H.P.and another                                  ...Respondents

    Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1NO __________________________________________________________________

For the petitioner: Mr. A.K.Gupta, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocate General with Mr.Sunny Dhatwalia, Assistant Advocate General.

Anoop Chitkara, Judge Challenging the order of disallowing work charge status

by the Director of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh, the employee has

come up before this Court.

2. The petitioner claimed to have been appointed on daily

wages, with effect from 11.04.1990 with respondent No.2. The

petitioner further claimed that she had worked for 240 days

continuously for ten years and, as such, with effect from 01.01.2020,

she is entitled to be given work charge status, which was not granted.

She further stated that her services were regularized, with effect from

07.08.2006.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

3. The respondents, in reply, state that the service of the

petitioner was regularized, with effect from, 07.08.2006 and she

.

joined her duties as Beldar, with effect from 19.08.2006.

4. Vide impugned order, Annexure P-1, the Director of

Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh, denied her conferment of work charge

status on the ground that no work charge cadre is available with the

Department and, as such, she does not confer with such status.

5. 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.

6. In reply, the respondents supported the dismissal of her

claim.

7. After abolition of H.P. Administrative Tribunal, the case

file was transferred to this Court and registered as CWPOA No.6159

of 2019.

8. The limited claim of the petitioner is that she was entitled

to work charge status on completion of ten years' service as Beldar by

working 240 days in each calendar year. Whether she has worked for

240 days in each calendar year is the subject matter of scrutiny of

the attendance register and other records, which would be available

with the Department because it does not form part of the petition. As

far as conferment of work charge status is concerned, the matter is

no more res Integra.

9. The State did not claim the irregularity in her initial

recruitment or its process.

.

10. In Gauri Dutt v. State of HP, 2007 LawSuit(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.

1. 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?

2. 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?

3. 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.?

4. 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.

11. The petitioner is granted work charge status from the

date of her completing ten years of work, subject to completion of 240

days in each calendar year, as per attendance register(s)/entries

following the scheme framed by the State Government on 6th May

2000, and in terms of the judgment of this Court in Gauri Dutt v.

State of HP, CWP 778 of 2006, decided on 29-12-2007, (2007 Law

Suit (HP) 397). As per Para-1 of the respondents' reply, the

petitioner's services were regularized in 2006. The petitioner had filed

the petition on 21.12.2015. The arrears have to be restricted up to

three years before filing the petition, i.e., up to Dec 2012. But in the

year 2012, the petitioner was no more working as a daily wager but

was on a regular post. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any back

wages or arrears of wages. However, the petitioner would be entitled

to other incidental and consequential benefits, if any. The

.

respondents are 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 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.

                            r                                    Anoop Chitkara,
                                                                      Judge

    03 August, 2021
         (R.Atal)