Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And on 6 September, 2021
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Justice, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 06th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 189 of 2011
Between:-
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH SECRETARY (FORESTS)
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH, SHIMLA.
2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
HIMACHAL PRADESH TALLAND,
SHIMLA.
3. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
PANGI FOREST DIVISION,
KILLAR, H.P.
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE
GENERAL WITH SMT. RITTA
GOSWAMI, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)
AND
1. SMT. BIMLA
W/O SH. SANT RAM
VILLAGE MOUJHI
POST OFFICE SAHALI
TEHSIL PANGI
DISTRICT CHAMBA (HP)
2. SH. LUXMI CHAND
S/O SH. KARAM CHAND
VILLAGE DHANALA
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:01:13 :::CIS
2
POST OFFICE SAHALI
TEHSIL PANGI,
DISTRICT CHAMBA (HP)
.
3. SMT. GULABI
W/O SH. DEVI CHAND
VILLAGE MOUJHI
POST OFFICE SAHALI
TEHSIL PANGI
DISTRICT CHAMBA (HP).
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE, THOUGH SERVED)
____________________________________________________
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, Hon'ble
Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath, delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single
Judge on 06.04.2010 in CWP(T) No.16035 of 2008 titled Smt.
Bimla and others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and
others, directing the respondents/State to condone the
shortage of few days and to confer the work charge status to
the writ petitioners, the State is in appeal.
2. Smt. Ritta Goswami, learned Additional Advocate
General, submits that the order passed by the learned Single
Judge is erroneous. That the order to condone the shortage
by assuming the minimum requirement of 160 days is
improper. Hence, she pleads that the impugned order passed
by the learned Single Judge be quashed and set aside.
3. None appears for the respondents.
4. Heard learned Counsel.
.
5. The respondents/writ petitioners were engaged on
daily wage basis in the year 1994. They are serving in tribal
areas. The requirement of law is that so far as tribal areas are
concerned, only 160 days instead of 240 days is the minimum
requirement for getting the work charge status. In the reply
filed by the respondents/State, the existence of shortage was
noticed. They are between one day and 27 days to the
maximum for various periods of time for majority of the years,
when they have completed the requirement of 160 days. On
considering the minimal shortage that occurred in the cases of
the writ petitioners, the learned Single Judge was of the view
that the said shortage should be condoned and the work
charge status would be conferred to the writ petitioners. It is a
discretionary relief that has been granted by the learned
Single Judge. That the shortage is not of such an extent that
State should be aggrieved by it. The shortage is very minimal.
Even otherwise the learned Single Judge having rightly
exercised the discretion, we find no perversity in exercise of
such a discretion. The same has been done in accordance
with law by condoning the minimal period of shortage. Hence,
we do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned
order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed.
.
( Ravi Malimath )
Acting Chief Justice
( Jyotsna Rewal Dua )
Judge
September 06, 2021 (rohit/VS)
