The State of Himachal Pradesh vs Smt. Sumitra Devi

Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.—State has come up in appeal against the judgment, dated 6th January, 2011, passed by this Court in CWP(T) No. 13716 of 2008. The respondent was offered appointment on compassionate grounds. The appointment admittedly is w.e.f. 11.5.1995. It appears there had been various communications between the appointing authority and the Government with regard to the mode of appointment and the benefits flowing therefrom, ultimately leading to Office Order, dated 4.5.2005 and in that order opening paragraph itself makes it clear that in terms of the approval accorded by the Government on 25.4.2005, the respondent had been " ...engaged on compassionate grounds as work charged beldar (purely temporary post) w.e.f. 11.05.1995 ( i.e. the date of initial appointment as Daily-Waged Beldar in the department)...." The order also has referred to in detail, the scales available to the respondent upto December, 1995 and thereafter it is stated that she would be put in the scale sanctioned by the Government from time to time in the category. Since the actual benefits arising from Annexure A-2, Office Order, were not flowing, the petitioner had to pursue the matter in an another round of litigation. The Government, as per Annexure A-5, clarified that the respondent-writ petitioner cannot be granted work charge status from the date of initial appointment as daily waged beldar w.e.f. 11.5.1995, but it was ordered as follows:-

Accordingly her pay is to be regulated on notional basis from retrospective date and actual benefits are to be given from prospective date i.e. 4.5.2005.

The order makes it clear that the objection of the Government after ten years is not on the appointment as work charged beldar, but on the payment of actual benefits. For one thing, the Government having accorded the approval for appointment as work charged beldar after a series of communications w.e.f. 11.5.1995 and fixing the pay also at various stages, it cannot turn round after one year and say that benefits were to be disbursed only notionally on the ground that the initial appointment can only be as daily waged beldar. It is to be seen that even the present stand of the Government is that benefits can be given on notional basis as work charged beldar. The stand ex-facie is intra contradictory. The learned Single Judge has hence rightly held that the Government having once treated the respondent to have been appointed as work charged beldar w.e.f. 11.5.1995, cannot thereafter interpret the order and that too without any clarity as to the basis of appointment. Thus, we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. We make it clear that in view of the pendency of the appeal, the default interest shall not be liable to be paid by the Government in case the benefits are disbursed within one month from the date of production of the copy of this judgment by the respondent before the Executive Engineer and if not, the respondent will be entitled to interest as directed by the learned Single Judge and the officer(s) responsible for the delay shall be personally liable for the same.

We find that the respondent has been in litigation for a quite long, therefore, in the interest of justice, it is only appropriate to clarify, to avoid another round of litigation, that the respondent-petitioner shall be considered for regularization in preference to any work charged beldar, put on work charge basis on 12.5.1995. In other words in case any work charged beldar appointed on 12.5.1995 or thereafter has been regularized in service under the appellants, the respondent-petitioner shall also be entitled to regularization w.e.f. back date and also all the benefits flowing from that date.

The appeal is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.