Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jogi Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 3 January, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.5920 of 2021
Date of Decision : 03.01.2024
.
Jogi Ram
...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
......Respondents
Coram:
of
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge
1
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner rt : Mr. Bonit Parkash Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. A.K.
Gupta, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with
Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)
Allowed and disposed of.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking
following substantive relief:-
"(i) That the respondents may be ordered to bring
services of the petitioner on work charge
establishment from the date he completed 8 years
service with all the benefits incidental thereof."
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. The principal argument for non-grant of work charge status to the
present petitioner is based on the fact that the Department of
Panchayati Raj has no work charge establishment. No other
.
contentions have been raised or urged.
3. In CWP No.2735 of 2010, titled Rakesh Kumar vs. State of
H.P. & Ors., decided on 28.07.2010, it has been categorically held that
there is an obligation cast upon the department to consider the case of
of
daily waged workmen for conferment of the work charge status, being
on a work charge establishment, on completion of the required number
rt
of years in terms of the policy. Further, it has been clarified therein that
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 bound to confer the
status, subject to the workmen satisfying the required conditions. The
said judgment admittedly has attained finality and has been
implemented by the State Government.
4. The contention raised by the learned Deputy Advocate General
that the Department in question is not a work charge establishment, is
without merit. In State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Ashwani Kumar, CWP
No.3111 of 2016, dated 10.05.2018, it has been specifically held that
work charge establishment is not a prerequisite for conferment of work
charge status nor conversion of work charge employees into regular
employees would make the existence of such establishment non-
existent. The aforesaid judgment has also attained finality and has
been implemented by the State Government.
5. In view of the above, present petition filed by the petitioner is
.
allowed and the respondents are directed to grant work charge status
to the petitioner from the date, he 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
of
conferment of work charge status in terms of the instant judgment shall
be restricted to three years for the period prior to filing of petition.
rt
Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending
miscellaneous applications, if any.
( Bipin Chander Negi)
January 03, 2024 (KS) Judge
