Himachal Pradesh High Court
Smt. Mahajnu Wife Of Late Shri vs State Of H.P on 23 September, 2021
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
Reportable
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
.
ON THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) NO. 6406 of 2019
Between:-
SMT. MAHAJNU WIFE OF LATE SHRI
TANKLU, R/O VILLAGE GHALACH,
POST OFFICE BHANTHAL, TEHSIL
KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
r ........ PETITIONER.
(BY SH. MUKUL SOOD, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF H.P
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
(IRRIGATION AND PUBLIC HEALTH) TO
THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH, SHIMLA-2..
2. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF,
IRRIGATION & PUBLIC HEALTH (I&PH)
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. H.P.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, I & PH
DIVISION KARSOG, KARSOG, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
.....RESPONDENTS
( BY. SH. HEMANT VAID, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MR. VIKRANT
CHANDEL, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
RESERVED ON: 2.9.2021
DECIDED ON: 23.9.2021
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:06:51 :::CIS
2
.
This petition coming on for order this day, the Court passed the following:-
ORDER
The writ petitioner was conferred, the status of a work
charge employee, under the respondents, in the year 2002.
However, she claimed that she was to be regularized in the year
(supra), whereas she became regularized in the year 2007.
Moreover, the writ petitioner has superannuated from service in the
year 2012. Therefore the writ petitioner, through the instant petition,
has canvassed the granting to her, the afore relief alongwith the
relief, of hers being bestowed the benefit of Annexure A-7, wherein,
class IV daily wagers engaged prior to 2001 i.e. when an earlier
notification, limiting the age of class IV employees, was reduced
from 60 to 58 years, was made, rather a prescription being
embodied, that daily wagers (supra) will cease in the employment, at
the age of 60 years, whereas, daily wagers deployed after reduction
of age limit in the year 2001, will superannuate on theirs attaining
the age of 58 years.
2. Annexure A-7 has been drawn on 22.2.2010, and, it
prescribes therein, that only class IV daily wager engaged prior to
2001, would become entitled to be superannuated, at the age of 60
.
years, whereas those daily wager who became deployed after 2001,
will superannuate at the age of 58 years. Even though, the afore
narrations carried in Annexure A-7, do assuredly constrain this
Court, to, make the interpretation (supra), vis-à-vis them. However,
the learned Deputy Advocate General has contended, with much
vigour before this Court, that the afore interpretation, as, made to
the afore echoing, carried in Annexure A-7, is incorrect, as, the
Principal Division Bench of this Court, while being seized with an
alike Annexure rather proceeded to through a verdict made on
22.11.2011 upon an alike controversy as carried in LPA No. 298 of
2011, has made a contra interpretation thereto, in as much as, in the
relevant paragraph 2 thereof, which becomes extracted hereinafter,
an inference has been made, that only when the writ petitioner(s)
therein entered regular service before 10.5.2001, thereupon they
would become entitled to continue in service, up to, the age of 60
years. However the afore interpretation, as, becomes relied, upon by
the learned Deputy Advocate General, and, appertaining to the afore
echoing(s) carried in Annexure A-7, and, as similar to the echoings
as become carried in A-2, as became enclosed with LPA (supra),
are clearly beyond the ambit, and, the apposite signification to be
.
meted to them, in as much as, irrespective of regularization in
service of daily waged workman, the benefit of theirs continuing in
service up to the age of 60 years, became bestowed upon the daily
rated workman concerned. However, with a rider that their
engagement in a daily wage capacity occurring prior to 2001. Since
the writ petitioner, was engaged as a daily wager prior to 2001, and
became regularized in 2007, and, prior thereto work charge status,
became conferred upon her in the year 2002. Therefore, dehors the
benefit of regularization becoming bestowed, upon her, in the year
2007 yet she became completely covered, within the echoings
carried in Annexure A-7, which are like the one as become carried,
in Annexure A-2 enclosed in LPA (supra), as apposite echoing
(supra), do confer the completest right in the daily waged workmen,
who entered in service prior to 2001, to continue in employment
under their employee, up to the age of 60 years.
"Learned Single Judge in the judgment under appeal
has followed LPA No. 196 of 2010, which is no more a
good law in view of the position under law that being a
judgment rendered per in curium it has no
precedential value and it is no more binding. As far as
the facts of the case of the petitioner are concerned, it
.
is an admitted fact that he had entered regular service
only in the year 2007 , though he was on daily waged
service prior to 2001. Only in case the writ petitioner
entered regular service before 10.5.2001, he would be
entitled to continue upto the age of 60 years."
3. Even otherwise, this Court in LPA No. 194 of 2015, decided
on 3.12.2015, has made the afore interpretation to the echoing(s)
borne in Annexure A-7, and, in Annexure A-II, as become enclosed
with LPA No. 298 of 2011. Since no material exists on record, that
the view propounded in LPA No. 194 of 2015, has become reversed
through a decision being made upon an apposite SLP rather by the
Hon'ble Apex Court. Consequently, the decision recorded in LPA
No. 194 of 2015, acquires apt conclusivity and binding force.
Moreover, also when the interpretation as made upon LPA No. 298
of 2011, is clearly and plainly, beyond the tangible interpretation to
the relevant echoing (supra), as become carried in Annexure A-7,
and, in A-II (enclosed in LPA No. 298 of 2011). Therefore, the writ
petitioner was entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60
years. However, when she is superannuated, thereupon the afore
benefit can only be notionally conferred upon her.
4. In so far as the other relief(s) appertaining to the petitioner
.
becoming entitled to be regularized in the year 2000, than in the
year 2007 is concerned, the afore relief is declined. The reason
being that prior thereto in the year 2002, the work charge status
became conferred upon her, and, when the afore conferment was in
consonance with verdicts pronounced by this Court, in as much as,
it being a pre condition, for thereafters the benefit of regularization in
service becoming conferred upon her. Moreover, when the
availment of benefit of regularization in service by the writ petitioner,
does require, that she at the relevant time occupied the appropriate
notch in the seniority list, whereas, the writ petitioner has not
appended the seniority list, as, maintained by the
respondents/employer, and, with clear displays therein, that the
workers junior to her, were conferred regularization in service, prior
to hers being conferred with the afore benefit of regularization in
service. Therefore, it is to be concluded, that the benefit of
regularization as became conferred, upon, the writ petitioner, was a
sequel of others who occurred above her in the seniority list, hence
becoming tenably earlier to her rather bestowed with the benefit of
regularization in service, by the respondents.
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of
.
alongwith all pending applications.
23rd September, 2021 (Sureshwar Thakur),
(priti) Judge.
r to
