AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
CMP No.21989 of 2026
In view of the averments made therein, present application, seeking early hearing of the petition is allowed and disposed of.
CWP No.7397 of 2022
With the consent of the parties the case stands taken up for consideration today.
By way of this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:-
“(i). That a writ in the nature of Certiorari may kindly be issued, thereby office order dated 22-6-2018 passed by respondent No. 3 may kindly be quashed and set aside, and order dated 6.7.2017 passed in T.A No. 189/2017, Titled as Sahib Singh Vs State of H,P & Ors by the erstwhile H.P State Administrative Tribunal at Shimla, may kindly be upheld, with the further directions to the respondents to release all the due and admissible benefits to the petitioner arising therefrom alongwith interest @ of 18% per annum, from due date, at the earliest, in the interest of justice and fair play.”
The petitioners presently before this Court are the legal heirs of the original petitioner who passed away during the pendency of the petition. The petitioners are aggrieved by Office Order dated 22.06.2018 (Annexure P-7), in terms whereof, the case of the petitioner (deceased-petitioner) for conferment of work-charged status with all consequential benefits stands rejected by the Authority by holding that in between the years 1995 to 2005 as the petitioner had not completed 240 days in each calendar year, therefore, he was not entitled for the grant of work-charged status w.e.f. 01.01.2005.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having carefully perused the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith, including the order passed by the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in favour of the original High Court of H.P.petitioner, Shri Sahib Singh, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law.
Shri Sahib Singh approached this Court earlier seeking the relief of conferment of work-charged status as a Beldar by condoning breaks which as per the petitioner were sought. These proceedings culminated into the order passed by the erstwhile Tribunal in T.A. No. 189 of 2016, titled Sahib Singh vs. State of H.P. & others, dated 06.07.2017, copy whereof is appended with the petition as Annexure P/6. For ready reference, the order of the learned Tribunal is quoted hereinbelow:-
“Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has worked as daily wage Beldar with the respondents and the applicant is entitled to work charge status as Beldar as per norms after condoning breaks which are very short. The manday's chart stipulates that the applicant had completed 303 days in 1994, 222 days in 1995, 220 days in 1996, 180½ days in 1997, 214 days in 1998, 219 days in 1999, 224 days in 2000, 229 days in 2001, 221 days in 2002, 230 days in 2003, 231 days in 2004, 230 days in 2005, 331 days in 2006 and 304 days in 2007.
2.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present transferred application is covered by the judgment dated 14.12.2009 rendered by the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 4493 of 2009 for giving work charge status to the applicant.
3.The perusal of manday's chart of the applicant indicates that the applicant has worked less than 240 days. The case of the respondents is that since the applicant has not completed 8 years of continuous service with minimum of 240 days, therefore, he is not entitled to regularization. The perusal of applicant manday's chart indicates that the short fall in the work of the applicant in each calendar year is of a few days. This question has been considered by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 4493 of 2009 decided on 14.12.2009, wherein it has been held as follows: -
“Consequently, in view of the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondents ought to have condoned the shortage of few days in the years 1999, 2000 and 2001 while calculating 240 days. The petitioner has worked uninterruptedly w.e.f. 1999 to 2008. He has completed eight years of service, as prescribed under the norms laid down by the State Government for conferring work charge status.
Consequently, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for granting him work charge status after condoning the shortage of few days in the years of 1999, 2000 and 2001 and re-verifying the years/days w.e.f. 1.1.2002 till 31.12.2008. This exercise be completed by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from today."
4.The applicant has been in continuous service and has completed 240 days in a calendar year.
5.The contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant in the present transferred application is covered by the judgment dated 14.12.2009. Therefore, the transferred application deserves to be allowed, in terms of the judgment dated 14.12.2009 in CWP No. 4493 of 2009 and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for granting him work charge status in terms aforesaid judgment after counting his continuous employment from 1994.
6.Consequently, the transferred application is allowed in case of the terms of the judgment dated 14.12.2009 in CWP No. 4493 of 2009 and the respondents are directed to consider the applicant for granting him work charge status with all consequential benefits in terms of the aforesaid judgment within three months from today.
7.In view of the above, the transferred application stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.”
A perusal of the order passed by the learned Tribunal demonstrates that learned Tribunal, by referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.4493 of 2009 decided on 14.12.2009, allowed the application in terms of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4493 of 2009 by directing the respondents to consider the case of the applicant/petitioner for granting work-charged status in terms of the said judgment after counting his continuous employment from the year 1994. However, rather than implementing this judgment in letter and spirit, the Authority went on to reject the case of the petitioner by treating the directions passed by the erstwhile Tribunal as a direction to decide the representation of the petitioner by passing a fresh order of consideration and rejected the same by High Court of H.P.assigning the following reasons:-
“And whereas I have examined the matter and pursued the record thoroughly, it is an admitted fact that the applicant was initially engaged on daily wages as Beldar w.e.f. 1994 and has worked with 303 days in the calendar year1994. But in the year 1995 to2005 he has not completed 240 days in each calander year, hence applicant is not entitled for grant of work charge status w.e.f. 1-1-2002 Therefore the undersigned after considering all facts and circumstance of the case, is of the considered view that applicant is not entitled for the relief claimed in the OA. The representation of applicant thus considered as per Hon'ble Tribunal direction passed in judgment dated 06.07.2017 and rejected in terms of above stated facts and rules.”
While passing the impugned order, the Authority erred in not appreciating that the learned Tribunal had not passed an order directing the Authority to decide any representation of the petitioner afresh or to take a fresh call on the request of the petitioner to confer work-charged status upon him. What the learned Tribunal ordered was that it concurred with the prayer of the petitioner therein that the shortfall in days be condoned in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4493 of 2009, decided on 14.12.2009, and thereafter, passed an order for granting work-charged status to the petitioner in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench. Simply because it was observed by the learned Tribunal in Para-5 that the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant, the respondents misconstrued the order and took it as if it is also run-of-the-mill order to decide the issue of conferment of work-charged status upon the petitioner afresh.
Therefore, in light of above observations, as the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, this petition is allowed. Order dated 22.06.2018 (Annexure P-7), is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to confer work-charged status upon the original petitioner in terms of the observations of the erstwhile Tribunal in the earlier case filed by the petitioner, by condoning the shortage of days in the years in between 1995 to 2005. The work-charged status be conferred upon the petitioner from the due date, with all consequential benefits.
The petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, in above terms.