Kangoo vs Lashkari Ram
2022 Latest Caselaw 272 HP

                                 1


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                       ON THE 21st DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                                 BEFORE




                                                             .
                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,





                               CHIEF JUSTICE

                                     &





                 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

                   CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 162 OF 2022





          Between :-

           SMT. NIRMALA DEVI, WD/O LATE SH.
           RATTAN CHAND, VILLAGE & P.O.

           KANGOO, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR,
           DISTT. MANDI, H.P.

                                                     ...PETITIONER
          (BY MR. PARVEEN THAKUR,


          ADVOCATE)

          AND




    1.     STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
           THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY





           JAL SHAKTI VIBHAG, (I & PH) TO
           THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL
           PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.





    2.     THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, JAL
           SHAKTI VIBHAG, (I&PH) NEAR ISBT
           TUTIKANDI, SHIMLA-171 005.
    3.     THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
           JAL SHAKTI VIBHAG (I&PH)
           CIRCLE, SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
           MANDI (H.P.)
    4.     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, JAL
           SHAKTI VIBHAG DIVISION,
           SUNDERNAGAR (I&PH) DISTRICT




                                            ::: Downloaded on - 21/02/2022 20:10:59 :::CIS
                                     2


         MANDI (H.P.)

                                                         ...RESPONDENTS

       (MR. ASHOK SHARMA,
       ADVOCATE GENERAL, WITH




                                                                        .
       MR. VIKAS RATHORE,





       MS. RITTA GOSWAMI,
       ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERALS)
    ____________________________________________________





                This petition coming on for admission this day,

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, passed the following :

                             ORDER

Case of the petitioner is that her husband late Shri

Rattan Chand was engaged on daily wage basis as beldar in

Irrigation and Public Health Division Sundernagar, District Mandi,

H.P. in the year 1987. He served as such w.e.f. 21.01.1987 to

20.05.1987. His muster roll/designation thereafter was changed

to pump operator by the respondent-IPH department.

The petitioner further submits that after completion of

10 years of continuous daily wage service as pump operator,

services of her husband were regularized w.e.f. 01.01.1998 vide

order dated 12.10.1999. Late Shri Rattan Chand retired from

service on 30.04.2006.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the

respondent-department though has paid all retiral benefits to her

late husband on the basis of his length of service rendered in the

department, however, while calculating his pensionary benefits,

the respondents have not paid him gratuity for the daily wage

service period w.e.f. 01.01.1987 to 31.12.1997.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

.

respondent-department is liable to pay gratuity to the petitioner's

husband for the service rendered by him on daily wage basis

w.e.f. 01.01.1987 to 31.12.1997. Learned counsel further

submits that the case of the petitioner is covered by a judgment

passed in State of H.P. Vs. Lashkari Ram, reported in 2008(1)

Sim. LC 245.

4. In Lashkari Ram's case (supra), the workman had

worked on daily wage basis for a specified period and thereafter

his services were regularized. It was held therein that when the

workman had worked in two different spells in two different

capacities, then he is entitled to get the benefit of both the acts

i.e. Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 for the service rendered on

daily wage basis and CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 for the service

rendered on regular basis.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has represented to the respondent department vide

Annexure P-5 dated 06.08.2021 for extending the benefit of

gratuity for daily wage service period in favour of her husband,

however, till date no action on the same has been taken by the

respondents. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner would

be satisfied in case the respondents are directed to decide the

pending representation (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner within a

time bound schedule in light of the judgment rendered in Lashkari

.

Ram's case (supra). Learned Additional Advocate General does

not object to this prayer.

Considering the submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties, without adverting to the merits of the

case, we dispose of the instant writ petition by directing the

respondents/competent authority to decide the representation of

the petitioner i.e. Annexure P-5 dated 06.08.2021 in light of the

judgment rendered in State of H.P. Vs. Lashkari Ram, reported

in 2008(1) Sim. LC 245 within a period of two months from

today. The copy of the decision, so arrived at, be supplied to the

petitioner. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

( Mohammad Rafiq ) Chief Justice

21st February, 2022 (K) ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua ) Judge