Mansara Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors

Satyen Vaidya, J

Heard.

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:-

(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to give work charge status to the applicant w.e.f 01.01.1995 instead of 27.12.1997 with all consequential benefits with interest @ 12% per annum from the due date till the date of realization.

(ii) That the directions may kindly be directed to re-fix the retiral benefits of the applicant in accordance with law after giving the work charge status to the applicant w.e.f. 01.01.1995.

(iii) That the respondents may further be directed to pay the leave encashment for 300 days instead of 127 days as the applicant is also entitled to get all leaves as are admissible to regular employees even during her working as work charged employee.

The grievance of the petitioner is that she has worked for continuous ten years on daily wages with respondent-HIMUDA with completion of 240 days in each calendar year and thus, she was entitled to conferment of work charge status immediately on completion of ten years i.e. 01.01.1995, whereas she has been granted regular work charge status, vide Annexure A-3, dated 24.12.1997.

Petitioner further has prayed for the benefit of leave encashment strictly in accordance with the applicable rules.

Respondents-HIMUDA in its reply has admitted that petitioner had completed ten years of continuous service on 31.12.1994 and therefore, she became entitled to conferment of work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.1995. As regards, the claim of leave encashment of the petitioner, it has been submitted that as per instructions dated 10.02.2011, issued by CEO-cum-Secretary, HIMUDA, Shimla, leave encashment for 240 days is applicable to the work charged regular employee and leave encashment of 60 days is applicable to the case of work charged temporaryemployee. It is contended that since the petitioner was a temporary employee, she would be entitled to leave encashment of only sixty days.

In view of the admission made by respondents in their replies, petitioner definitely is entitled for conferment of work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.1995 instead of 24.12.1997 as granted to her. Needless to say, she will also be entitled to consequential benefits arising from the change of dates of conferment of work charge status on her.

Perusal of office order dated 24.12.1997, whereby petitioner was conferred work charge status clearly reveals that the appointment of petitioner was made as work charged regular basis. In this view of the matter, the contention of respondents that petitioner was a temporary work charge is belied and petitioner is held entitled to the benefit of leave encashment to the tune of 240 days.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to confer the work charge status on the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1995 with all consequential benefits and also to grant her benefit of leave encashment to the tune of 240 days. Needful be done within six weeks from today.

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application, if any.