Himachal Pradesh High Court
Bhindro vs State Of H. P. & Ors on 16 December, 2022
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Virender Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No. 3578 of 2022 a/w CWPOA
.
Nos. 3234, 6139, 6142, 6147, 6154,
6157, 6158, 6159, 6161, 6165, 6167,
and 6168 of 2020, CWP Nos. 918, 930,
932, 933, 934, 939, 940, 952, 977,
1077, 1178, 1220 and 3560 of 2022
Decided on: 16.12.2022
1. CWP No. 3578 of 2022
Bhindro ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
2. CWPOA No. 3234 of 2020
Dev Bahadur ....Petitioner
versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
3. CWPOA No. 6139 of 2020
Tani ....Petitioner
versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
4. CWPOA No. 6142 of 2020
Chain Lal ....Petitioner
versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
5. CWPOA No. 6147 of 2020
Vinoj ....Petitioner
versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
6. CWPOA No. 6154 of 2020
Shakti Prashad ....Petitioner
versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2022 20:34:26 :::CIS
2
7. CWPOA No. 6157 of 2020
Tilak Raj ....Petitioner
.
versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
8. CWPOA No. 6158 of 2020
Jarmo ....Petitioner
versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
9. CWPOA No. 6159 of 2020
Raju ....Petitioner
versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
10. CWPOA No. 6161 of 2020
Yog Raj ....Petitioner
versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
11. CWPOA No. 6165 of 2020
Chaino ....Petitioner
versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
12. CWPOA No. 6167 of 2020
Gahlo ....Petitioner
versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
13. CWPOA No. 6168 of 2020
Suresh ....Petitioner
versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
14. CWP No. 918 of 2022
Devi Singh ....Petitioner
versus
::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2022 20:34:26 :::CIS
3
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
15. CWP No. 930 of 2022
.
Himo ....Petitioner
versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
16. CWP No. 932 of 2022
Piar Singh ....Petitioner
versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
17. CWP No. 933 of 2022
Roso ....Petitioner
versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
18. CWP No. 934 of 2022
Yog Raj ....Petitioner
versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
19. CWP No. 939 of 2022
Joginder Pal & Ors. ....Petitioners
versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
20. CWP No. 940 of 2022
Raman Kumar ....Petitioner
versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
21. CWP No. 952 of 2022
Bittu ....Petitioner
versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
22. CWP No. 977 of 2022
Ghindro ....Petitioner
versus
::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2022 20:34:26 :::CIS
4
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
23. CWP No. 1077 of 2022
.
Dayal Dutt & Anr. ....Petitioners
versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
24. CWP No. 1178 of 2022
Man Chand ....Petitioner
versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
25. CWP No. 1220 of 2022
Gurmeet Singh & Ors. ....Petitioner
versus
State of H. P. & Ors.
r ...Respondents
26. CWP No. 3560 of 2022
Naresh Kumar ....Petitioner
versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma, Mr. A. K. Gupta, Mr.
Dharam Malhotra and Ms. Anjali
Malhotra, Advocates.
For the Respondents :Mr. Ashok Sharma, A.G. with Mr. Vinod
Thakur, Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Addl.
A.Gs., Mr. J. S. Guleria and Mr. Bhupinder
Thakur, Dy. A.Gs.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
Since common question of law and facts arise for
consideration in these petitions, therefore, they are taken up
.
together and are being disposed of by way of a common
judgment.
2. In order to maintain clarity and for the sake of
convenience, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 3578 of
2022.
3.
The prayers made in all these petitions are virtually
common to the effect that the respondents be directed to grant
actual financial benefit from the date when they completed eight
(8) years of regular service with arrears.
4. The respondents have filed their replies wherein they
have not disputed the claim of the petitioner(s) for
regularization, save and except, to contend that the financial
benefits would be available to them only for the preceding three
years from the date when they approached the Court and those
of the employees, who have not approached the Court, the
benefit would be granted for preceding three years from the date
of passing order dated 15.06.2015. This is clearly evident from
para-3 of the preliminary submissions, which reads as under:-
3. That upon dismissal of SLPs in Rakesh Kumar's case
pertaining to identical issue of retrospective work charge
status, the department has passed a detailed office order
wherein it is decided that the actual financial benefit shall
be admissible to respective workmen for proceeding three
years from the date of filing of writ petition(s) or OA (s) as
also held in Jaidev Gupta V/S State of H. P. case. But in
.
those cases where workmen had not filed any DALHOUSIE
CHAMBA AYKUMARI writ petition, he/they shall be entitled
for financial actual benefit for proceeding three years from
the date of this order only (copy of order is attached as
Annexure R-2). The petitioner was also granted work
charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2002 upon completion of 8
years of service and consequential benefits were granted
to him for preceding three years from the date of passing
of order dated 15.6.2015 (copy of order is attached as
Annexure R-2). During the year, 2015, the respondent No.
3 i.e. Executive Engineer HPPWD Division Chamba
processed the arrear bills of the petitioner alongwith
others bearing bill No. 1217 dated 23.11.2015 to the
District Treasury office, Chamba but the District Treasury
Office raised the objection on 2/12/2015 that "the copy of
Judgment of Hon'ble Court in favour of the above
employee' be enclosed (Annexure R-3). As the petitioner
earlier did not approach the Hon'ble Court for any claim,
therefore the copy could not be supplied to the Distt.
Treasury and the objection was raised in the Arrear bill of
the petitioner and others by the Distt. Treasury Chamba
and returned the bills to the Respondent No. 3 i.e.
Executive Engineer, Chamba Division HPPWD, Chamba. It
is further submitted here that the District Treasury Office,
Chamba vide office letter No.Fin(TR)CMA-TRYBills/2018-19-
4550 dated 10.12.2018(Annexure R-4) forwarded the
matter to Special Secretary (Finance)-cum-Director,
Treasuries, Accounts & Lotteries for obtaining necessary
guidelines w.r.t. release of payment of petitioner. Again
the matter was taken up with the District Treasury
Chamba by the Executive Engineer, Chamba Division
HPPWD, Chamba vide his letter dated 1.5.2019 (Annexure
R-5) but the District Treasury Chamba vide his letter No.
1631 dated 15.5.2019(Annexure R-6) intimated that the
.
matter is sub-judice in the Hon'ble Tribunal court, as and
when the matter is decided the same will be intimated.
Therefore, in view of these facts and circumstances the
respondent department is unable to release the arrear in
favour of petitioner. As and when the guidelines of the
Special Secretary (Finance)-cum-Director, Treasuries,
Accounts & Lotteries as asked by the Distt. Treasury
Officer Chamba vide above referred letter received
regarding the release of payment of arrear of the
petitioner and the bill of the petitioner is passed, the
payment shall be made to the petitioner. Hence, the
present CWP being devoid of any merits deserves to be
dismissed and the District Treasury Office, Chamba also
deserves to be issued direction to release the arrear in
favour of petitioner. The necessary direction in this
regards are required to be issued to the District Treasury
Office, Chamba to release the arrear in favour of the
petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s), on instructions,
states that their clients are agreeable to the grant of arrears as
set-forth by the respondents in the reply.
6. Consequently, the instant petitions are disposed of
with a direction to the respondents to adhere to the proposal as
given in para-3 (supra). The arrears to the petitioner(s) and
similarly situated employees be released within twelve weeks
from today.
7. The petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid
terms, so also pending applications, if any.
.
For compliance, to come up on 17.03.2022.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
(Virender Singh)
16th December, 2022 Judge
(sanjeev)
