Himachal Pradesh High Court
H.P. Agricultural Marketing Board vs Dev Raj & Anr on 7 December, 2023
Bench: M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
Decided on: 07.12.2023
.
H.P. Agricultural Marketing Board ....Appellant
Versus
Dev Raj & Anr. ....Respondents
Coram
of
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao,Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
rt
For the appellant : Ms. Kiran Lata Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Advocate, for the non-
applicant/respondent No.1.
Mr. Virender Singh Rathore, Advocate, for the
non-applicant/respondent No.2.
M.S. Ramachandra Rao (Chief Justice)(Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2) This appeal is preferred against order dt. 07.01.2023 of learned
Single Judge in CWP no.5046/2022.
3) The 1st respondent had filed the said Writ Petition against the
appellant for grant of work charge status w.e.f. 11.03.2000 when he has
completed eight years of continuous service as daily wager with 240 days
in each calendar year alongwith interest on the delayed arrears of salary
and the benefits of revised pay salary till realization.
4) The 1st respondent is an ex-serviceman, who, after his discharge
.
from Indian Army, had registered himself with ex-serviceman cell on
16.01.1990 and he was engaged as daily waged worker by proforma
respondent no.2 w.e.f. 11.03.1992.
5) He worked in the said capacity till 18.12.2006, when he was
of
offered a temporary post of Peon, which he accepted and continued to
work on such post till his superannuation in the year 2012.
rt
6) He thereafter filed CWP no.4779/2019 praying therein that initial
engagement with proforma respondent no.2 in the year 1992 be declared as
regular appointment and he be granted all consequential benefits.
7) Vide judgment dt. 21.09.2021, this Court rejected the prayer of 1 st
respondent, but observed that the period in which the 1 st respondent
worked w.e.f. 1992 till 2006 could be considered for his eligibility for
conferment of work charge status. Liberty was granted to 1st respondent to
file an appropriate representation and the appellant was directed to
consider the same in accordance with law laid down by this Court in
judgment dt. 31.07.2014 in Mathu Ram Vs. Municipal Corporation and
Ors.,1 and judgment dt. 28.07.2010, in Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P. &
Ors2,. Liberty was also given to 1st respondent to approach the Court of
law, if he still remains aggrieved.
8) The 1st respondent then preferred a representation to proforma
.
respondent no.2, but the same was rejected on 18.04.2022 on the ground
that it did not have work charge establishment at any point of time and
therefore, the judgments passed in Rakesh Kumar's and Mathu Ram's
cases (supra) would not apply.
of
9) Assailing the same, 1st respondent filed CWP no.5046/2022 in this
Court. rt
10) In spite of the appellant having been given several opportunities to
file reply, it did not choose to file any reply before the learned Single
Judge.
11) However, learned Single Judge relied upon certain decision dt.
23.05.2022 of this Court such as State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors vs.
Smt. Reema Devi, LPA no.160/2021which had followed an earlier
judgment dt.10.05.2018 rendered by this Court in State of Himachal
Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar, CWP no.3111/2016, wherein it was
held that existence of work charge establishment is not a pre-requisite for
conferment of work charge status. The Division Bench also noted that the
view expressed in Ashwani Kumar's case had also been affirmed by the
Supreme Court.
12) Learned Single Judge, therefore, held that the reason assigned by
proforma respondent no.2 for rejection of representation of 1st respondent
was not sustainable. He accordingly quashed impugned order
.
dt.18.04.2022 and directed the appellant to consider 1 st respondent for
conferment of work charge status immediately on completion of requisite
period provided by the policy of the Government prevalent at that time. He
however clarified that 1st respondent would only be entitled to all
of
consequential benefits other than the financial benefits, since he had not
been diligent enough to espouse his claim for a number of years even after
rt
his retirement.
13) Assailing the same, this appeal is filed.
14) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the reasoning of
the learned Single Judge is incorrect.
15) But no judgment of this Court has been cited by the learned
counsel for the appellant contrary to the judgments in the cases of
Ashwani Kumar and Reema Devi (supra).
16) It is also not in dispute that the judgment in Ashwani Kumar's case
has been affirmed by the Supreme Court and the legal position about work
charge status being conferred on an employee in an establishment which
itself is not a work charge establishment, is now settled.
17) We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and the same is
dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
.
( M.S. Ramachandra Rao )
Chief Justice
of
(Jyotsna Rewal Dua)
Judge
07th December 2023
(rohit)
rt
