Shri Bhag Chand vs The State of H.P. and Others

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the writ petitions, these were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, in order to maintain clarity, the facts of C.W.P. No. 4210 of 2012 have been taken into consideration.

CWP No. 4210 of 2012

Petitioner is serving as Panchayat Chowkidar since 1988. Earlier, he has approached this Court by way of CWP No. 2342 of 2009. The same was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court 13.10.2010. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected by the Director (Panchayati Raj), Government of Himachal Pradesh on 19th October, 2010.

Mr. A.K. Gupta relying upon the policies framed by the respondent-State on 27.02.2004 and 13.10.2009 as well as the judgment rendered by this Court on 20th July, 2012, has vehemently argued that the services of the petitioner are required to be regularized or in the alternative, he should be conferred with work charge status and daily wage status after completion of ten years service. He also contended that his clients are entitled to regular salary with allowances.

Mr. Pramod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the policies framed by respondent-State on 27.02.2004 and 13.10.2009 can not be made applicable to the employees of the Gram Panchayat. He then contended that the petitioner is an employee of the Gram Panchayat and is not a Government servant.

Petitioner is appointed u/s 135 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 read with Rule 137 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Rules, 1997. The appointing authority of the petitioner is Gram Panchayat and not the State Government. He is paid remuneration on monthly basis by the Gram Panchayat @ Rs. 1000/-, out of which, Rs. 850/- is provided to the Gram Panchayat by the State by way of Grant-in-Aid and Rs. 150/- is paid by the respective Gram Panchayat from its own resources.

The petitioner cannot be termed as Government servant. There is no master servant relationship of the petitioner with the State Government. The policies framed by the State Government on 27.02.2004 and 13.10.2009 are only applicable to the employees of the State Government and not to the employees of the Gram Panchayat.

Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance on judgment, dated 20.07.2012, rendered in CWP No. 2994 of 2012-J. This was the case of Revenue Chowkidars. This Court while disposing of the petition has taken into consideration the Original Application filed by the Revenue Chowkidar bearing O.A. No. 824 of 2002, which was decided by the learned Tribunal on 27.06.2006. The State has assailed the judgment rendered by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 824 of 2002 before this Court by filing CWP No. 281 of 2007, which was decided by this Court on 12.04.2007. This Court has taken into consideration the reply filed before the Tribunal. The State has not disputed in the reply that the Revenue Chowkidars were part time employees of the State. However, in the present case, the petitioner is an employee of the Gram Panchayat. He is not serving under any Government Department. Accordingly, the judgment, dated 20.07.2012, rendered by this Court in CWP No. 2494 of 2012-J, relied upon by Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, is distinguishable on facts.

A Division Bench of this Court in CWP(T) No. 8506 of 2008, decided on 24.11.2009 and CWP (T) Nos. 9608 and 9609 of 2008, decided on 25.11.2009 has also held that the Panchayat Chowkidars are the employees of the Gram Panchayat and not of the State Government. Thus, their services cannot be ordered to be regularized by the State Government. The decision to regularize the services of the petitioner or to confer daily wage status is to be taken by the Gram Panchayat and not by the State Government. In view of this, no mandamus can be issued to the Gram Panchayat, i.e., respondent No. 4 to regularize the services of the petitioner. This Court can also not issue any directions to respondent No. 4 to frame a policy for regularization in view of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, . The notifications, dated 27.02.2004 and 13.10.2009, whereby the decision has been taken to confer work charge status on part time workers has not been issued to the Gram Panchayats. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.