Sh. Puran Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5885 HP

                                                            .
    IN   THE   HIGH     COURT    OF   HIMACHAL         PRADESH,            SHIMLA





                       ON THE 21st DAY OF JULY, 2022
                              BEFORE
                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA





                    CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2713 of 2019

         Between:





    1.   SH. PURAN CHAND,
         AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS,
         RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JHURED,
         PO SIUR, TEHSIL BHARMOUR, DISTRICT CHAMBA,
         HP, PRESENTLY SERVING AS A LAB ASSISTANT

         IN THE OFFICE OF SOIL TESTING OFFICER, CHAMBA, H.P.

    2.   SH. ASHOK KUMAR,
         S/O SHRI YOGYA RAM,
         RESIDENT OF VPO MOHALLA KARODA,
         TEHSIL & DISTRICT CHAMBA, HP


         RETIRED GOVT. SERVANT SERVED
         AS A LAB ASSISTANT IN THE OFFICE
         OF SOIL TESTING OFFICER, CHAMBA, H.P.




    3.   SH. CHAMAN SINGH,
         SON OF SHRI BAINSU RAM,





         RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HATERI, PO MANGLA,
         TEHSIL & DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.,
         PRESENTLY SERVING AS A LAB
         ASSISTANT IN THE OFFICE OF





         SOIL TESTING OFFICER, CHAMBA, H.P.

                                                               ....PETITIONERS
         (BY MR. ANGREZ KAPOOR,
         ADVOCATE)

         AND




                                           ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2022 20:03:23 :::CIS
                                               2




    1.    STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH




                                                                       .
          THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (AGRICULTURE)





          TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HP SHIMLA.

    2.    THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
          SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.





    3.    THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
          CHAMBA, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.

                                                                        ....RESPONDENTS





          (BY MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR
          AND MR. NARENDER GULERIA,
          ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL,
          WITH MR. SUNNY DHATWALIA,
          ASSISTANT ADVOCATE GENERAL,
          FOR THE STATE)


    Whether approved for reporting?.
    This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:

                                          ORDER

Petitioners herein were appointed on daily wage basis in the

year 1986, 1991 and 1994 respectively, in the Department of Agriculture,

Himachal Pradesh. Subsequently, their services were regularized w.e.f.

19.8.2006, 31.10.2006 and 7.8.2006 by the respondent-department in

terms of the policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal

Pradesh. Since petitioners were not regularized from the date they

completed eight years daily service with 240 days in each calendar year,

they were compelled to file OA No. 126 of 2012, before the erstwhile HP

State Administrative Tribunal, whereby vide order dated 9.1.2018, a

direction came to be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the

.

petitioners in light of the judgment passed by this Court in case titled Hiro

Devi v. State of HP. Though after passing of the aforesaid judgment,

petitioners filed representations before the concerned department to

consider their cases in light of Hiro Devi's case (supra), as was directed by

the erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal, but fact remains that vide

office order dated 27.7.2018, respondents rejected the case of the

petitioners on the ground that they are not covered under the judgment

passed by this Court in Hiro Devi's case. Respondents claimed in the

aforesaid order that since Agricultural Department is not a Work Charge

Establishment, they cannot be conferred work charge status in light of the

judgment rendered by this Court Hiro Devi's case and in CWP No. 3724 of

2012, titled Sukh Chain v. State of HP. In the aforesaid background,

petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for following

main reliefs:

"I. That the writs in the nature of certiorari and mandamus may kindly be issued and rejection orders dated 27.7.2018 Annexure P-2 may kindly be quashed and set-aside.

II. That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the service of petitioners immediately after

completion of 8 years service as daily waged

.

worker/DPL.

III. that the arrears, seniority and all other consequential benefits w.e.f. completion of 8 years with

interest may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioners.

IV. That the respondents may kindly be directed to

cancel the order of retirement of the petitioner No.2, whereby the petitioner has been retired by the respondents on 31.03.2019 at the age of 58 years and be directed to allow him to work upto the age of 60

years as per the state govt. policy, as well as the

judgments of this Hon'ble Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly states that at this

stage, he does not press relief No.4 because petitioners have already

superannuated. His statement is taken on record.

3. Facts as detailed herein above, with regard to appointment of

the petitioners on daily wage basis in the Agriculture Department w.e.f. the

dates noticed herein above are not denied, rather specific case of the

respondent -department as has been highlighted in the reply and further

canvassed by Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General,

is that since Department of Agriculture is not a Work Charge

Establishment, there is no question of granting the work charge status to

the petitioners after their having completed eight years service. Mr.

.

Bhatnagar, submits that service of the petitioners otherwise stand

regularized in terms of the policy framed by the Government of Himachal

Pradesh for regularization of the daily wage employees. He further submits

that since at the time of regularization of the petitioners, new

Regularization Policy of 2006 had come in operation, there was no occasion

otherwise for the department to consider the case of the petitioners for

regularization in terms of the policy of the regularization framed by the

State Government prior to year, 2006.

4. True it is that in the case at hand, service of the petitioners

were regularized w.e.f. 19.8.2006, 31.10.2006 and 7.8.2006, whereas as

per the policy, they were required to be regularized w.e.f. 1.1.2002,

1.1.1994 and 1.1.2000, because admittedly, on or before the aforesaid

dates, petitioners had already completed eight years daily wage service with

240 days in each calendar year. The Division Bench of this Court vide

judgment dated 10.5.2018, passed in CWP No. 3111 of 2016, titled State of

HP and Ors v. Ashwani Kumar has categorically held that Work Charge

Establishment is not a pre-requisite for conferment of work charge status

nor conversion of work charge employees into regular employees would

make the existence of such establishment non-existent. In the aforesaid

judgment, Division Bench of this Court has further held that while deciding

.

the issue, it is to be kept in mind that the petitioners are only Class-IV

workers and the schemes announced by the Government clearly provide

that the department concerned should consider the workmen concerned for

bringing them on the work charged category and as such, there is no

obligation cast upon the department to consider the case of the daily waged

workman for conferment of daily work charge status on the completion of

the required number of years in terms of the policy.

5.

Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General,

has not been able to dispute the aforesaid judgment rendered by the

Division Bench of this Court in Ashwani Kumar's case supra because

same has attained finality. Apart from above, issue/question involved in

the present case already stands settled in number of cases i.e. CWP No.

4489 of 2009, titled Ravi Kumar v. State of HP and Ors, further upheld by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 33570 of 2010

titled State of HP and Ors v. Pritam Singh and connected matters and CWP

No. 187 of 2017, decided on 19.9.2017, titled State of HP and Ors v. Hira

Nath.

6. Another objection raised by the learned Additional Advocate

General with regard to delay and laches is also not sustainable in terms of

the dictum given by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2735 of

.

2010 titled Rakesh Kumar v. State of HP and Ors, wherein it has been

categorically held that once scheme announced by the Government

provides for conferment of work charge status of an employee/ workman

after his/her having completed requisite period, it is the duty of the

department to consider the cases of such workmen for conferment of work

charge status on completion of required number of years in terms of the

policy. Most importantly, in the aforesaid judgment, it has been

categorically held that claim of the petitioner for work charge status cannot

be defeated on the ground of delay and laches, at best he can be only

denied the interest on the eligible benefits and not the benefits, which may

have accrued to him on account of grant of conferment of work charge

status. Relevant para of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:

"6. The simple question is whether the delay defeats justice? In analyzing the above issue, it has to be borne in mind that the

petitioners are only class-IV workers (Beldars). The schemes announced by the Government clearly provided that the

department concerned should consider the workmen concerned for bringing them on the workcharged category. So, there is an obligation cast on the department to consider the cases of the daily waged workmen for conferment of the workcharged status, being on a work-charged establishment, on completion of the required number of years in terms of the policy. At the best, the petitioners can only be denied the interest on the eligible benefits

and not the benefits as such, which accrued on them as per the

.

policy and under which policy, the department was found to

confer the status, subject to the workmen satisfying the required conditions."

7. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed

and respondents are directed to grant work charge status to the petitioners

from the date they had completed eight years service as daily wagers in the

department alongwith consequential benefits. However it is made clear

that petitioners would not be entitled to any interest on the consequential

benefits they may receive on account of grant of work charge status after

completion of eight years. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is

disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.

    21st July, 2022                                    (Sandeep Sharma),
         (manjit)                                             Judge