Himachal Pradesh High Court
Beldar Under National Highways vs State Of Himachal on 26 August, 2022
Bench: Satyen Vaidya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 26th DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 998 of 2022
Between:
SH. RAM SINGH, SON OF SH. NAND RAM,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST
OFFICE MASHOBRA, TEHSIL AND DISTT.
SHIMLA, H.P. PRESENTLY SERVING AS A
BELDAR UNDER NATIONAL HIGHWAYS
DIVISION THEOG, DISTT. SHIMLA, H.P.
...........PETITIONER
( BY MR. A.K. GUPTA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1.STATE OF H.P. THROUGH THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (PWD) TO THE
GOVT. OF H.P. WITH HEADQUARTERS
AT SHIMLA-2.
2.THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, HPPWD
WITH HEADQUARTERS AT NIRMAN
BHAWAN, SHIMLA-2.
3.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HPPWD
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS DIVISION THEOG,
DISTT. SHIMLA,H.P.
..........RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2022 20:06:03 :::CIS
2
(BY MR. R.P. SINGH AND MR. NARENDER
THAKUR, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERALS)
__________________________________________________
.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the
Court passed the following:
ORDER
Petitioner namely, Sh. Ram Singh, who is a Nepali
citizen, was engaged as a daily wage beldar with effect from
01.01.1998 and since then he had been working continuously with
240 days in each calendar year in the aforesaid capacity till his
regularization in the year,2017, Annexure R-2. Since the petitioner
was not granted work charge status after his having completed
eight years' service, he has approached this Court in the instant
proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying therein for following relief:
"That the respondents may be ordered to grant work
charge status to the petitioner from the date he
completed 8 years with all the benefits incidental
thereof."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while making this
Court to peruse the judgment rendered by Principal Division
Bench of this Court in bunch of petitions i.e. Civil Writ Petition
No. 5702 of 2011 titled Dal Bahadur versus State of Himachal
Pradesh alongwith other connected matters, contended that his
.
case is squarely covered with the aforesaid judgment. He also
invited attention of this Court to judgment passed by learned
Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 5799 of 2014 titled as
Budh Bahadur versus The State of H.P. and others, wherein
similar relief, as has been prayed in the instant petition, has been
granted to the petitioner in that case.
3. Aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the petitioner has
been resisted on behalf of the respondent-department by learned
Additional Advocate General on the ground that judgment
rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Dal Bahadur versus
State of Himachal Pradesh alongwith other connected matters
and judgment dated 27.04.2012 passed in Shiv Kumari versus
State of Himachal Pradesh alongwith other connected matters,
have not attained finality because department has laid challenge
to the same by way of SLP in the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. However, careful perusal of material made available to
this Court clearly reveals that SLP having been filed by the
respondent-State against the judgment rendered by Division
Bench of this Court in Dal Bahadur case (supra) stands
dismissed. Having taken note of dismissal of SLP filed by the
.
respondent-State in Dal Bahadur case, learned Single Judge
while allowing the writ petition bearing CWP No.5799 of 2014
titled as Budh Bahadur versus the State of HP and others,
directed the respondent-State to confer work charge status upon
the petitioner on his having completed eight years of uninterrupted
service and thereafter regularize the service of the petitioner in
accordance with law upon availability of vacancies.
5. Learned Deputy Advocate General was unable to
dispute that larger issue as to whether petitioner, who is not
Indian citizen, is entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction of Court of India
stands duly adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Learned
Dpeuty Advocate General was also unable to dispute that relief
claimed by the petitioner in the instant proceedings have been
already extended to similar situate Nepalee employees.
6. Division Bench of this Court while passing judgment
dated 9.11.2011 in Dal Bahadur case (supra) specifically took
note of judgment rendered by this Court in case tilted as Man
Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh, CWP No.1594 of
2008, decided on 27.7.2009, wherein it specifically took note of
resolution passed by Central Government on 1.3.1977, the office
.
memorandum dated 10.5.1978 and letter dated 16.7.2009
addressed by the Secretary (Agriculture) to the Government of
Himachal Pradesh to the Director of Agriculture, whereby it was
laid down that as far as Nepalese citizens are concerned, only
eligibility certificates are required. As per aforesaid judgment, if
Nepalese citizens are able to furnish eligibility certificates they are
also required to be granted benefit in terms of policy framed by
Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time with regard to
conferment of work charge status and thereafter regularization.
Since aforesaid judgment rendered by Principal Division Bench
has already attained finality, the petitioner in the case at hand
being similar situate person is also entitled for similar benefit.
7. Consequently, in view of the above, the present
petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to confer
work charge status upon the petitioner from the date he
completed eight years' service with all benefits incidental thereto.
Since the petitioner has approached this Court in the instant
proceedings in the year 2022, he is held entitled to consequential
benefits only for three years prior to filing of the petition.
.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
( Satyen Vaidya )
Judge
26th August, 2022
(sushma)
r to
