Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: October 7 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And ... on 7 October, 2023
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWPOA No. 6807 of 2020
Decided on: October 7, 2023
________________________________________________________
Devi Singh ........... Petitioner
.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others .. Respondents
________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate.
For the respondents :
Mr. Anoop Rattan, Advocate General
with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal
Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma,
Additional Advocates General with
Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Ms. Sunaina,
Deputy Advocates General.
________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):
Petitioner herein, who was engaged as a causal labourer at
Pangi Forest Division in the year 1994, though had completed more
than eight years daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar
year in the year 2001, but his services were regularized in the Forests
Department vide DFO letter No. 2283, dated 10.10.2007 (Annexure A-
1), against the post of Forest Worker. Since number of juniors of
petitioner as detailed in para 3 of the petition were regularized
alongwith the petitioner, he repeatedly requested respondents to
regularize his services from the date he completed his 8 years service
after the date of his initial appointment. As per petitioner, he was
required to be regularized against the post in question with effect from
1.9.2001 on the basis of judgment passed by this court in Rakesh
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Kumar v. State of HP and Ors, CWP No. 2735 of 2010, wherein it
came to be observed that there is obligation cast upon department to
consider regularization of daily wage workers as per policy, as per
.
which, the Department is bound to confer work charge status upon the
daily wage workers satisfying the required condition of daily wage
services. Since the petitioner was not granted work charge status after
his having completed 8 years of service and he was regularized with
effect from 10.10.2007, he approached erstwhile Himachal Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 1901 of 2019, which now on
account of abolishment of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal
has been transferred to this Court and re-registered as CWPOA No.
6807 of 2020, praying therein for issuing a direction to the respondents
for conferment of work charge status with effect from 1.9.2001.
2. Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant proceedings,
respondents have filed reply, wherein facts as have been taken note
herein above, have not been disputed rather stand admitted. It has
been stated in the reply that the petitioner was engaged as casual
labourer in the year 1994 but his services were rightly regularized
against the post of Forest Worker with effect from 10.10.2007. It has
been further averred in the reply that the prayer made by the petitioner
for conferment of work charge status cannot be accepted for the
reason that there is no work charge establishment in the Forests
Department and concept of work charge status is different from that
permanent establishment of Government Departments. It has been
further stated by the respondents that the services of the petitioner
were regularized in terms of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court
in Mool Raj Upadhaya, wherein, in terms of judgment, daily wagers
could only be regularized after his /her having completed 10 years daily
wage services with 240 days in each calendar year. Respondents have
.
stated in the reply that wages and allowance of work charged
employees used to be charged in the Public Works Department and
Irrigation and Public Health Department and persons were granted
benefit of aforesaid decision of Government because the departments
had work charge establishment whereas there is no work charge
establishment in the Forests Department and there is no occasion to
3.
r to
grant work charge status to the petitioner from the date he completed
8 years daily wage service.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record. this court finds that the prayer made by
petitioner for conferment of work charge status from date of completion
of 8 years has been rejected on the ground that there is no work
charge establishment in the Forests Department. However, material
available on record clearly reveals that the respondent granted similar
benefits to other persons namely Dhani Ram and Narayan Dass, on
the basis of direction issued by this court in CWP Nos. 4094 of 2010
and 4095 of 2010 dated 27.7.2010, whereby direction was issued to
consider representations of petitioner within ten weeks in terms of
Mool Raj Upadhayay v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Gauri Dutt
v. State of Himachal Pradesh.
4. In terms of aforesaid orders, representations of persons namely
Dhani Ram and Narayan Dass were duly considered and allowed.
However, in case of person namely Het Ram, representation was
rejected and as such, his wife Reema Devi approached Himachal
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of an Original Application,
which on abolishment of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal
.
came to be transferred to this Court and was re-registered as CWPOA
No. 5566 of 2019 praying therein to set aside order passed on
representation filed by her late husband.
5. This court vide order dated 3.9.2020 passed in CWPOA No.
5566 of 2019, titled Reema Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and
others, quashed the order passed on representation filed by Het Ram
6.
r to
and held him entitled for work charge status from the date he
completed 8 years of service.
Since in the case of Reema Devi supra, similar plea was set up
by the respondents to defeat the claim of late Het Ram, that there is no
work charge establishment in the Forests Department and this court
having taken note of various judgments passed by this court, held Het
Ram entitled for grant of work charge status from date of completion of
8 years of service. It would be apt to take note of following paras of the
aforesaid judgment:
"3. Since, it is quite apparent from the perusal of order as contained in
Annexure A-7 that similarly situate persons have been already granted work
charge status on their having completed eight years regular service in the
forest department, there is no justification at all to deny the claim as has been
raised in the present petition by the petitioner. Moreover, it is well settled by
now that work charge status in terms of mandate given in Mool Raj
Upadhaya's case is to be granted to all the daily wage workers working in
various departments of the State on their having completed eight years
regular service.
4. 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. Besides above, in the
aforesaid judgment, Division Bench of this Court has specifically observed
that while deciding the issue, it is to be borne in mind that the petitioners are
only class-IV worker i.e. Beldars and the schemes announced by the
Government, clearly provides that the department concerned should consider
the workmen concerned for bringing them on the work charged category and
.
as such, there is an obligation cast upon the department to consider the case
of daily waged workman for conferment of work charge status, on completion
of required number of years in terms of the policy. Otherwise also, issue in
question stands settled in CWP No. 4489 of 2009, titled Ravi Kumar v. State
of H.P. and Ors, decided on 14.12.2009, which has been further upheld by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to appeal (C) No. 33570//2010 titled
State of HP and Ors. v. Pritam Singh and connected matters. Apart from
above, decision rendered by this Court in CWP No. 3301/2016, Narotam
Singh v. HPSEBL and Ors is also based upon the decision rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development
Corporation (1990) 1 SCC 361, as well as judgment rendered by this Court in
CWP No. 9970 of 2012 titled Laxmi Devi v. State of H.P. and Ors. Leaving
everything aside, aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court in Ashwani
Kumar's case (supra) has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court."
7. In the judgment supra, this court having taken note of the
judgment in Mool Raj Upadhaya categorically ruled that in terms of
mandate given therein that work charge status is to be given to all
daily wage workers having completed 8 years of service.
8. In CWP No. 3111 of 2016, titled State of Himachal Pradesh v.
Ashwani Kumar, which was further upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court,
this court categorically ruled that cessation of work charge
establishment if any, has to do nothing with conferment of work charge
status and work charge establishment is not a prerequisite for
conferment of work charge status. Aforesaid view taken by this court in
Ashwani Kumar, passed by Division Bench was further upheld by
Hon'ble Apex Court.
9. Recently, Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.165 of
2021, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & Others vs. Surajmani
and Another, decided on 12.1.2023, alongwith connected matters, has
.
held 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."
10. Judgment of this court in Reema Devi was laid challenge by
way of LPA No. 160 of 2021, before Division Bench of this court, but
same was dismissed as a result of which mandate contained in Reema
Devi has attained finality.
11. During the course of arguments, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned
Additional Advocate General placed heavy reliance upon
communication dated 24.9.2015 Annexure R-III issued by Additional
Secretary (Forests) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to state
that in terms of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaswant
Singh and others v. Union of India and others, (1979) 4 SCC 440,
Forests Department is not a work charge establishment but such plea
of him deserve outright rejection in view of categorical finding returned
by Division Bench in LPA No. 160 of 2021 in State of Himachal
Pradesh v. Reema Devi, wherein it has been held as under:
"6. Late Shri Het Ram, husband of respondent herein was engaged as
daily wage Class-IV employee in the Forest Division Karsog, District
Mandi, H.P., in 1994. His services were regularized w.e.f. 11.09.2007.
Late Shri Het Ram, by way of CWP No.980/2013, approached this
Court for relief of grant of work charge status in his favour from the
date he had completed eight years of daily wage service. CWP No.
980 of 2013 was decided by this Court on 04.03.2013 with a direction
.
to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of
judgment passed by this Court in Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. &
others, CWP No.2735 of 2010. Vide order dated 17.11.2015, the
Divisional Forest Officer, Karsog Forest Division, rejected the case of
late Shri Het Ram in following terms:-
"Whereas, Government of Himachal Pradesh vide its letter No.
Fin (Pen) A (3) dated 18/2010 dated 10.07.2015 asked the Pr. Chief
Conservator of Forests (HoFF), HP to determine "whether HP Forest
Department has work charge establishment or not."
Whereas, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HoFF),
HP Shimla-1 constituted a committee vide office order No.605/2015(E-
III) dated 3.9.2015 to deliberate and determine "Whether HP Forest
Department is a work charge establishment in terms of Hon'ble Apex
Court Judgment in Jaswant Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
(1979)4SCC 440 p 456 or not?" The Committee after due diligence
and deliberations submitted its report with the recommendation that
"The HP Forest Department is not a work charged establishment" and
the Govt. of HP has accepted and ratified the recommendations of the
committee as conveyed by Addl. Chief Secretary (Forests) to the
Govt. of HP vide letter No. FFE-A (B) 17-37/2015 dated 24.09.2015.
Now therefore, taking into consideration that the Forests
Department is not a work charged establishment, the claim of the
petitioner for conferment of work charge status on completion of 8
years of service, in terms of Hon'ble High Court order dated
28.07.2010 passed in CWP No. 2735/2010- titled as Rakesh Kumar
Vs. State of HP & Ors., which has been relief upon by the Honb'ble
HP High Court in its judgment dated 4.3.2013 in CWP No. 980/2013-
titled as Het Ram Vs State of HP & Ors is hereby considered and
rejected because the regularization policy of the Govt. dated 3.4.200
and 6.5.2000 nor the judgment of Hon'ble HP High Court dated
28.07.2010 in CWP No. 2735 of 2010-titled as Rakesh Kumar Vs.
State of HP is applicable in this particular case to the extent of grant of
work charge status. Accordingly claim is disposed of as not admitted."
Thus, the Divisional Forest Officer, Karsog Forest Division, had rested
his decision on the report of an internal committee of appellants'
department declaring that H.P. Forests Department was not a work
charge establishment. Shri Het Ram had died on 24.03.2014 i.e.
before the passing of the aforesaid rejection order dated 17.11.2015.
7. Respondent herein preferred O.A. No. 3109 of 2015 before the
erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal for grant of following
reliefs:-
"i) That the respondent department may kindly be directed
to grant/release the arrear to the applicant after
.
granting the work charge status/regularization to the
husband of the applicant (Het Ram) w.e.f. 1.1.2002
with in the time bound manner along with 12% interest.
ii) That the respondents department may kindly be
directed to refix the pay of the husband of the applicant
w.e.f. 1.1.2002 and release the entire arrear on account
of refixation of pay within time bound manner along
with 12% interest.
iii) That the respondents department may kindly be
directed to release the pension to applicant (1.1.2002
to 23.03.2014) 12 years under the CCS Pension Rules,
1972 within the time bound manner along with 12 %
interest for delayed payment.
iv) That the respondents department may kindly be
directed to release the gratuity for regular period ( i.e.
1.1.2002 to 23.03.2014) to applicant within time bound
manner along with 12% interest for delayed payment.'
By way of amendment, another relief was added in following
terms:-
(viii) That the impugned order dated 17.11.2015 (Annexure
A-6) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the
respondents department may kindly be directed to
grant regularization/work-charge status to the husband
of the applicant w.e.f. 1.1.2002 with all consequential
benefits and entire arrear on account of retrospective
regularization may kindly be ordered to be released in
favour of the application."
8. On Abolition of H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, O.A. No.
3109 of 2015 came to be transferred to this Court and registered as
CWPOA No. 5566 of 2019.
9. After filing of O.A. No. 3109 of 2015, the Division Bench of this
Court passed judgment in CWP No.3111 of 2016, titled State of H.P.
& Ors. vs. Ashwani Kumar on 10.05.2018 and upheld the order
passed by the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal dated 23.06.2014 in
O.A. No. 412 of 2016, in the following manner:-
"6. Having carefully perused material available on record,
especially judgment rendered by this Court in Ravi Kumar v.
State of H.P. & Ors., as referred herein above, which has been
further upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to
Appeal (C) No. 33570/2010, titled State of HP & Ors. v. Pritam
Singh and connected matters, this Court has no hesitation to
conclude that there is no error in the finding recorded by the
learned Tribunal that work charge establishment is not a pre-
requisite for conferment of work charge status. The Division
Bench of this Court while rendered its decision in CWP No.
2735 of 2010, titled Rakesh Kumar decided on 28.07.2010,
has held that regularization has no concern with the
conferment of work charge status after lapse of time, rather
Court in aforesaid judgment has categorically observed that
.
while deciding the issue, it is to be borne in mind that the
petitioners are only class-IV worker (Beldars) and the schemes
announced by the Government, clearly provides that the
department concerned should consider the workmen
concerned for bringing them on the work charged category and
as such, there is an obligation cast upon the department to
consider the case of daily waged workman for conferment of
daily work charge status, being on a work charged
establishment on completion of required number of years in
terms of the policy. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been
specifically held that benefits which accrued on workers as per
policy are required to be conferred by the department." The
aforesaid findings rendered by this Court were upheld by the
Hon'ble Apex Court.
10. It is in light of aforesaid findings that the impugned judgment has
been passed. In the facts of the case Ashwani Kumar (supra), the
employer had resisted the claim of employee on the ground that
HPPWD had ceased to be a work charge establishment for Class-III
employees w.e.f. 01.04.2011 and for Class-IV employees w.e.f.
19.08.2005 and thus, the petitioner therein, who had not completed 8
years' service on or before abolition of work charge establishment was
not entitled for grant of status of work charge employee. Hence, the
Division Bench of this Court while deciding Ashwani Kumar's case
(supra) had held that the work charge establishment is not a
prerequisite for conferment of work charge status."
12. Consequently in view of detailed discussion made supra and law
taken into consideration, this court finds merit in the petition and
accordingly same is allowed and respondents are directed to grant
work charge status to the petitioner from the date he completed 8 years
of daily wage services, 1.9.2001 alongwith all consequential benefits.
All pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
October 7, 2023
Vikrant
