Paonta Sahib vs 997 Alongwith All Consequential ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5057 HP

                                      1




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                 ON THE 26th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021




                                                           .

                                BEFORE

            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR





     CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) NO.3355
                           OF 2020
    Between:-





    SH. RAM SINGH
    SON OF SH. BALBIR SINGH,
    RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHARANWALA,
    P.O. HARIPUR KHOL,
    TEHSIL PAONTA SAHIB,

    DISTT. SIRMOUR, H.P.
    EX. MASON, I &PH DIVISION

    PAONTA SAHIB, DISTT. SIRMOUR, H.P.

                                                              ....PETITIONER
    (BY SH. A.K. GUPTA, ADVOCATE)



         AND




    1.   STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH





         THROUGH       THE      PRINCIPAL
         SECRETARY       (I&PH)     WITH
         HEADQUARTERS AT SHIMLA, H.P.





    2.   THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF,
         I&PH WITH HEADQUARTERS AT U.S.
         CLUB, SHIMLA-1.

    3.   THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
         I&PH DIVISION PAONTA SAHIB,
         DISTT. SIRMOUR, H.P.
                                                         ....RESPONDENTS
         (BY SHRI YUDHVIR SINGH, DEPUTY
         ADVOCATE GENERAL)


    Whether approved for reporting?




                                          ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:13:44 :::CIS
                                          2


                This petition coming on for order this day, the Court

    passed the following:

                              ORDER

.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking

direction to the respondents to confer work charge status upon

him on notional basis w.e.f. 01.01.1997 with all benefits

incidental thereto.

2. Undisputed fact in present case is that petitioner was

appointed as a Mason on daily wage basis w.e.f. 01.01.1987 and

his services were terminated in the year 1988.

                      r                                                   Against his

    termination,    petitioner   had     raised        the     Industrial       Dispute

alongwith other workmen and ultimately award was passed by

the Industrial Tribunal in favour of the petitioner on 31.08.2000

holding that petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in the job with

continuity in service, but without any back wages.

3. It is also admitted fact that after passing of the

Award, respondents have re-engaged the petitioner on daily

wages on 19.02.2005 and work charge status has been conferred

upon him from 01.09.2000 vide Office Order No.9114-17 dated

01.08.2011 issued by the Superintending Engineer, IPH Circle

Nahan.

4. Prayer of the petitioner has been opposed by the

respondents on the ground that conferment of work charge

status upon the petitioner from 01.01.1997 instead of

01.09.2000 shall not make any difference as the petitioner is not

entitled for any back wages for that period.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

work charge service is counted for calculation of qualifying

service for pensionary benefits and the petitioner has retired on

.

31.03.2010 and, therefore, grant of work charge status by

considering petitioner in service as directed by the Labour Court,

petitioner shall be entitled for pensionary benefits as in that

eventuality he would be considered as work charge employee

from 01.01.1997 and, thus, on 31.03.2010, he would be

completing eligible service of 13 years against required

qualifying service of 10 years for pensionary benefits.

6. It is also undisputed that Award passed by the

Labour Court has not been assailed by the respondents rather in

pursuant thereto, petitioner has been re-engaged on 19.02.2005

and work charge status has been conferred upon him from

01.09.2000. Wherefrom the date 01.09.2000 has been chosen is

not clear from the record. There is specific direction by the

Labour Court that petitioner was entitled to be reinstated in job

'with continuity in service', therefore, he is to be considered in

continuous service w.e.f. 01.01.1987 and in view of verdict of the

Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhayay vs. State of H.P. and

others, 1994 (2) SCC 316, work charge status has to be

conferred upon him on completion of 10 years i.e. 01.01.1997.

7. It is no longer res integra that period of work charge

service is to be counted for calculation of qualifying service for

the purpose of pension as has been held in judgment dated

10.09.2020 passed in CWPOA No.52 of 2019, titled as Beli Ram

vs. State of H.P. and in various other pronouncements of the

Courts.

8. In view of above, present petition is allowed and it is

.

held that petitioner is entitled for work charge status from

01.01.1997 alongwith all consequential benefits, except back

wages as held by the Labour Court, but he shall be entitled for

counting the period of service on notional basis from 01.01.1997

till his retirement for the purpose of calculation of pensionary

benefits and as such, he would be entitled for pensionary

benefits. Therefore, respondents are also directed to confer

work charge status upon the petitioner from 01.01.1997

alongwith pensionary benefits as per his entitlement on or before

31.12.2021.

9. Petition is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid

terms.

10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.

October 26, 2021 (Purohit)