Himachal Pradesh High Court
Tilak Raj vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 3 May, 2024
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Sushil Kukreja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWPOA No. 6726 of 2020
.
Date of decision: 02.05.2024
Tilak Raj ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? No.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath & Mr. Anshul Jairath,
Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Mr. I.N.
Mehta, Mr. Y. W. Chauhan, Sr. Addl.
A.Gs., Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Mr.
Navlesh Verma, Addl. A.Gs. and Mr. Raj
Negi, Dy. A.G.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed for grant of the
following substantive reliefs:-
(I) That the impugned corrigendum dated 29.03.2019 may
kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent that it
restricts arrears on account of delayed regularization of
the services of the applicants.
(ii) That the respondents may further be directed to
release the arrears of wages to the applicants w.e.f. the
notional dates of their regularization.
2. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal
Pradesh addressed a communication dated 27.02.2004 to all the
Deputy Commissioners and Heads of Departments conveying the
decision of the government regarding conversion of part-time
.
Class-IV employees who had completed 10 years of continuous
service as on 31.03.2003 in all the departments except
Education and Ayurveda, subject to fulfillment of certain terms
and conditions.
3. One Moti Singh filed CWP No. 2192 of 2011 before
this Court and the same was decided vide judgment dated
21.04.2014 wherein it was made clear that the writ petitioner
would not be entitled to any consequential monetary benefits, in
case, he is entitled for daily wage status with retrospective
effect.
4. Prior to the decision of the Court, another writ
petition came to be filed by one Pinju Ram, which was registered
as CWP No. 2494 of 2012 and came to be allowed vide order
dated 20.07.2012, wherein directions were issued to the State to
treat the Revenue Chowkidars, who had been conferred daily
wage status at par with all daily wagers in terms of the policy
and consequential benefits be released in his favour w.e.f.
01.01.2007.
5. This decision of the High Court in Pinju Ram's case
(supra) was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way
of SLP registered as SLP No. 37383-37385 of 2012. When the SLP
came up for consideration on the first date of hearing i.e.
02.01.2013, a statement was made to the effect that an SLP was
.
being preferred only limited to the question of payment of back
wages to the persons, who had been converted to daily wage
status as would be evident from the order dated 02.01.2013,
which reads as under:-
"Mr. Govind Goel, learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner-State submits that the special leave petition
has been filed only limited to the question of payment of
backwages to the persions who have been converted to
daily wage status.
In view of the above, issue notice and the direction with
regard to grant of consequential benefits shall remain
stayed."
6. The SLP preferred by the State was partly allowed
and the judgment of this Court was partly set aside regarding the
directions of payment of monetary benefits w.e.f. 01.01.2007.
While disposing of the civil appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
also directed that the State Government would abide by the
stipulations that were contained in the communication dated
22.09.2011, whereby restriction was placed on the amount of
wages to be paid to daily wage Revenue Chowkidars w.e.f. the
date they actually started working as Revenue Chowkidars in the
daily wage establishment, which direction, in turn, was based on
the decision of this Court in Moti Singh case (supra).
7. It is averred that the respondents-State had paid the
arrears of wages on account of the delayed regularization to the
.
Revenue Chowkidars in District Una, Shimla, Bilaspur, Chamba,
Kullu, Mandi, Solan and Sirmaur, whereas the Revenue
Chowkidars working in District Kangra have been denied the
same benefits by misinterpreting and misreading the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pinju Ram's case
(supra).
8.
It is urged that once the government had confined
the challenge only to the question of back wages to a person,
who was converted to daily wage status and the same would not
be applied to the case of the petitioners whose services came to
be regularized from 15.10.2016 to 29.01.2012 in the case of
petitioner No. 1, from 15.10.2016 to 17.05.2012 in the case of
petitioner No. 2, from 15.10.2016 to 01.01.2012 in the case of
petitioner No. 3 and from 15.10.2016 to 01.01.2012 in the case
of petitioner No. 4.
9. Thus, impressing upon this Court that the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, could not have been applied in
the case of the petitioners, when the challenge therein was
confined only to the question of back wages to persons, who
were converted to daily wage status and not those whose
services already stood regularized and were conferred the
further benefits of regularization from an anterior date.
.
10. In such circumstances, the office order dated
26.03.2019, passed by the Deputy Commissioner dismissing the
representation of one Ram Chand for arrears of pay cannot be
sustained. Consequently, the corrigendum dated 29.03.2019,
whereby the words "with all consequential benefits" have now
been treated to be read as "on notional basis" w.e.f. 01.01.2012
or after completion of 8 years of service on daily wager and with
actual financial benefits from the date of joining on regular basis
has been incorporated also cannot withstand judicial scrutiny.
11. The respondents have filed their reply wherein it has
been averred that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while passing the
final verdict has clearly held that:
"Having regard to this background, we are of the view,
that once the State Government decided to bring part
time Revenue Chowkidar on a daily wage basis with the
added stipulation that while their seniority would count
from the completion of ten years. This would be without
any past benefit, this principal was required to be duly
followed.
In the circumstances, Hon'ble High Court has not taken
the spirit of Pinju Ram's case and has wrongly issued a
direction for the payment of consequential monetary
benefits with effect from 01.01.2007.
Such a direction in fact was inconsistent with the
observations of the Hon'ble High Court itself in Moti Singh
which was decided on 21.04.2011.
The direction contained in the impugned order for the
payment of monetary benefit with effect from 01.01.2007
.
shall stand set aside. We clarify that the State Govt. shall
abide by the stipulation which are contained in the
communication dated 22.09.2011 issued by the Principal
Secretary, Revenue in the Department of Revenue which
have been noted in earlier part of this judgment.
The respondent, however, clarify that the seniority of the
part time Chowkidars who are granted daily wage status
will be counted from the date of completion of 10 years as
part time Chowkidars though without any financial
benefits for the past."
And on the basis of such averments, it is averred
that the claim of the petitioners is not maintainable.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have gone through the material placed on records.
12. We really wonder how the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court could be used as a pretense to deny the arrears
to the petitioners and how the corrigendum dated 29.03.2019
could be issued and applied to the case of the petitioners.
13. As noticed above, the SLP that was filed by the State
was limited only to the question of payment of daily wages to
the persons who have been converted to daily wage status and
was not at all applicable to the cases of those of the workmen
whose services already stood regularized as was in the case of
the petitioners herein.
14. The petitioners admittedly, were not daily wagers
and, therefore, the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
.
Court in Pinju Ram's case (supra) was not at all applicable in
their cases. As observed above, it was by virtue of the office
order dated 15.09.2018, which was in compliance to certain
orders passed by the learned Tribunal and also the judgment
passed by this Court in Pinju Ram's case (supra), that the
services of the petitioners were regularized from anterior date
and it was not a case where the services of the petitioners have
been converted to daily wage status.
15. No doubt, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had set aside
the order for payment of monetary benefits but the said direction
was only applicable to the cases of those of the part-time
Revenue Chowkidars, whose services had been converted to
daily wage status but same was not applicable to the cases of
those of the Revenue Chowkidars, like the petitioners, whose
services had already been regularized.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the
reasons stated above, we find merit in this petition and the same
is accordingly allowed and consequently the corrigendum dated
29.03.2019 is held to be not applicable to the cases of the
petitioners herein.
17. Accordingly the respondents are directed to release
the arrears of wages to the petitioners w.e.f. the notional dates
.
of their regularization with all consequential benefits.
18. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid
terms, so also pending applications, if any.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
r (Sushil Kukreja)
2nd May, 2024 Judge
(sanjeev)
