Himachal Pradesh High Court
Hiru Ram & Others vs The State Of H.P. & Others on 3 May, 2023
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWPOA No.7262 of 2019 a/w
CWPOA No.2606 of 2019, 5729 of 2019, 5750 of 2019, 5758 of
.
2019, 5790 of 2019, 5955 of 2019, 5963 of 2019, 5974 of 2019, 6008
of 2019, 6025 of 2019, 6121 of 2019, 6219 of 2019, 6331 of 2019,
6378 of 2019, 6796 of 2019, 6813 of 2019, 6935 of 2019, 6938 of
2019, 7154 of 2019, 7166 of 2019, 7252 of 2019, 7283 of 2019, 7381
of 2019, 7611 of 2019,7642 of 2019,7646 of 2019 7666 of 2019,
7669 of 2019,7858 of 2019,7970 of 2019 and CWPOA No.205 of
2020, 210 of 2020, 215 of 2020, 283 of 2020, 288 of 2020, 294 of
2020, 302 of 2020, 312 of 2020, 350 of 2020, 356 of 2020, 470 of
2020, 1087 of 2020, 1134 of 2020, 1180 of 2020,1260 of 2020, 1291
of 2020, 2120 of 2020 and 2168 of 2020
Date of Decision: 03.05.2023
_______________________________________________________
1. CWPOA No.7262 of 2019
Hiru Ram & others .......Petitioners
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
2. CWPOA No.2606 of 2019
Dinesh Kumar & another .......Petitioners
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
3. CWPOA No.5729 of 2019
Baru Ram .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
4. CWPOA No.5750 of 2019
Rangi Lal .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
5. CWPOA No.5758 of 2019
Om Prakash .......Petitioner
Versus
.
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
6. CWPOA No.5790 of 2019
Sat Pal .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
7. CWPOA No.5955 of 2019
Bhagi Rath & Anr. .......Petitioners
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
8. CWPOA No.5963 of 2019
Smt. Kalu Devi .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
9. CWPOA No.5974 of 2019
Satya Pal .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
10. CWPOA No.6008 of 2019
Smt. Dhanmaya .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
11. CWPOA No.6025 of 2019
Babu Ram .......Petitioner
Versus
.
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
12. CWPOA No.6121 of 2019
Dharam Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
13. CWPOA No.6219 of 2019
Shakuntla Devi .......Petitioner
r Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
14. CWPOA No.6331 of 2019
Bhim Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
15. CWPOA No.6378 of 2019
Rattanu Ram .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
16. CWPOA No.6796 of 2019
Smt. Reshmani & Anr. .......Petitioners
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
17. CWPOA No.6813 of 2019
Brij Lal .......Petitioner
Versus
.
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
18. CWPOA No.6935 of 2019
Hem Raj .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
19. CWPOA No.6938 of 2019
Kundan Singh .......Petitioner
r Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
20. CWPOA No.7154 of 2019
Smt. Prem Lata .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
21. CWPOA No.7166 of 2019
Govind Ram .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
22. CWPOA No.7252 of 2019
Prem Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
23. CWPOA No.7283 of 2019
Chatter Singh & Anr. .......Petitioners
Versus
.
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
24. CWPOA No.7381 of 2019
Smt. Sunita Thakur .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
25. CWPOA No.7611 of 2019
Satya Pal .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
26. CWPOA No.7642 of 2019
Gian Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
27. CWPOA No.7646 of 2019
Kanta Devi .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
28. CWPOA No.7666 of 2019
Smt. Dhansara .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
29. CWPOA No.7669 of 2019
Smt. Sukhdei .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
30. CWPOA No.7858 of 2019
Ram Dayal .......Petitioner
Versus
.
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
31. CWPOA No.7970 of 2019
Kailash Chand & others .......Petitioners
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
32. CWPOA No.205 of 2020
Surjan Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
33. CWPOA No.210 of 2020
Narender Kumar Sharma .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
34. CWPOA No.215 of 2020
Dev Raj .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
35. CWPOA No.283 of 2020
Ram Dutt .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
36. CWPOA No.288 of 2020
Ramesh Chand .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
37. CWPOA No.294 of 2020
Surender Lal & others .......Petitioners
Versus
.
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
38. CWPOA No.302 of 2020
Prem Lal .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
39.CWPOA No.312 of 2020
Kunta Devi .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
40. CWPOA No.350 of 2020
Desh Raj .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
41. CWPOA No.356 of 2020
Uma Kaushal .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
42. CWPOA No.470 of 2020
Yashwant Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
43.CWPOA No.1087 of 2020
Sunil Dutt .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
44. CWPOA No.1134 of 2020
Lal Chand .......Petitioner
Versus
.
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
45. CWPOA No.1180 of 2020
Sohan Lal .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
46. CWPOA No.1260 of 2020
Leela Dutt & Anr. .......Petitioners
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
47. CWPOA No.1291 of 2020
Sher Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
48. CWPOA No.2120 of 2020
Naresh Kumar .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
49. CWPOA No.2168 of 2020
Inder Dutt .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. A.K.Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and
Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate
Generals with Mr. Rahul Thakur, and Mr.
Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate Generals.
___________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Since common questions of law and facts are involved in
these petitions, therefore, the same were taken up together for
consideration and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. By way of instant petitions, petitioners have prayer for
following main relief:-
"i. That Annexure P-1 may be quashed and set-
aside and the respondents may be ordered to
grant work charge status to the applicants
from the dates they completed 8 years of
service as per the law laid down in Rakesh
Kumar's case, with all the consequential
benefits incidental thereof"
3. Though, reply on behalf of the respondents is on record,
but before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own
merits, learned counsel representing the petitioners while inviting
attention of this Court to the judgment dated 12.1.2023, passed by
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.165 of 2021, titled as State of
Himachal Pradesh & Others vs. Surajmani and another, alongwith
connected matters, submits that the issue raised in the instant
.
petitions stand duly answered in the aforesaid judgment and as such,
petitioners would be content and satisfied in case the respondents are
directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of
aforesaid judgment.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the
aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. However, he has
failed to controvert the factual/legal aspect of the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the petitioners.
5. Operative portion of the order dated 12.1.2023,
passed in LPA No.165 of 2021 reads as under:-
""57. In view of the above, the writ petitions filed by the
employees are allowed and the respondents are
directed to grant work charge status to the employees
from the date they had completed eight years of service
on daily wage basis in terms of the decision given by this
Court in Ashwani Kumar's case supra. However,
benefits consequent to conferment of work charge
status in terms of instant judgment shall be restricted to
three years for the period prior to filing of petition.
58. The Letters Patent Appeal(s), which have been filed
by the respondents/State/employer against the orders
passed by learned Single Judge, including LPA No.165
of 2021, as well as writ petitions filed by the
respondents/State/employer against the orders passed
by the Tribunal, are dismissed with the clarification that
the benefits consequent on conferment of work charge
status in terms of the judgment passed by the learned
.
Single Judge shall be restricted to three years for the
period prior to filing of petition."
6. Having perused the averments contained in the petitions
as well as relief prayer therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied
upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petitions
already stand adjudicated by Division bench of this Court in LPA
No.165 of 2021 and as such, no prejudice, if any, would be caused to
either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to consider and
decide the case of the petitioners in light of judgment supra.
7. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petitions
are disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider and
decide the cases of the petitioners in light of judgment dated
12.1.2023, passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.165 of
2021, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & Others vs. Surajmani
and another alongwith connected matters, expeditiously, preferably
within a period of six weeks and in case, petitioners are found to be
similarly situate, same benefit shall be granted to them. Needless to
say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant
order shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and
pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the
petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law,
if they still remain aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also
stands disposed of.
.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
May 03,2023
(shankar)
r to
