Vinay Kumar vs State of H.P.

Piar Singh Rana, J.—Order Present civil writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pleaded therein that in the month of April 1998 the petitioner was engaged as daily waged Surveyor and in the year 1999 services of petitioner were terminated. It is pleaded that thereafter in the year 1999 petitioner filed OA No. 3053/99 titled Vinay Kumar vs. State of H.P. It is pleaded that on dated 01.06.2000 OA was disposed of by Hon''ble High Court of H.P. and respondent was directed to maintain the seniority of petitioner from the date of engagement. It is pleaded that on dated 20.1.2010 services of petitioner were regularized. It is pleaded that respondents be directed to grant work charge status to the petitioner after completion of eight years of service with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary with 9% interest.

Per contra reply filed on behalf of the respondents pleaded therein that present petition is not maintainable. It is pleaded that present petition is barred on account of delay and latches. It is further pleaded that petitioner had been continuously working w.e.f. 1999 and completed eight years of service only on dated 31.12.2007 as Surveyor. It is pleaded that Government has abolished the cadre of work charged category in IPH department in 2006 vide letter No. IPH(A)2(B)15-16/2006 dated 31.5.2006. It is pleaded that work charge status is not automatic after completion of eight years of service and further pleaded that petitioner is not entitled for work charge status automatically on the completion of eight years of service. It is pleaded that Rakesh Kumar''s ruling is pending before Hon''ble Supreme Court of India and Hon''ble Supreme Court of India has stayed the operation of order passed by Hon''ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 2735 of 2010. Prayer for dismissal of petition sought.

Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents and Court also perused the entire record carefully.

Following points arise for determination in this civil writ petition:-

Whether benefit of work charge status could be granted to the employee in the establishment in which cadre of work charged category stood abolished?

Final Order.

Findings on Point No. 1

Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is legally entitled for status of work charge is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is the case of petitioner that petitioner has completed his eight years service in the month of April 2006 and it is the case of respondents that petitioner has completed his eight years service on dated 31.12.2007. In present writ petition there is dispute of fact inter-se the parties qua completion of eight years of service. It is well settled law that complicated question of law cannot be decided in writ petition. It is prima facie proved on record that vide letter No. IPH-(A)2(B)15-16/2005 dated 31.5.2006 the cadre of work charge category was abolished in IPH department. It is well settled law that petitioner cannot be appointed in the cadre which is already stood abolished by IPH department. It is well settled law that status of work charge post is given to the employee only if work charge cadre is available in the establishment of department. It is also well settled law that appointment upon public post by the public department is strictly conducted as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules. It is also well settled law that appointment and promotion in the public department is always conducted in two modes. (1) Promotional mode. (2) Direct entry mode. It is also well settled law that appointment on public post is conducted through Selection Committee constituted by the appointing authority and on the recommendation of Selection Committee as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules. It was held in case reported in Jaswant Singh and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, that work charged employees are engaged on temporary basis and their appointments are made for execution of specific work. It was held that from the very nature of their employment service of work charged automatically comes to an end on the completion of work for which purpose they are employed. It is held that work charge status of employee is not automatic in nature upon public post but is subject to recommendation of Selection Committee constituted by appointing authority in accordance with law.

Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that status of work charge should be granted to the petitioner in view of ruling given by Hon''ble High Court of H.P. in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 titled Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. decided on dated 28.7.2010 is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that decision announced in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 titled Rakesh Kumar and other vs. State of H.P. and others has been challenged before the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India and Hon''ble Supreme Court of India had stayed the operation of order passed in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 titled Rakesh Kumar and others vs. State of H.P. and others and matter is subjudice before Hon''ble Apex Court of India. Court has carefully perused the order passed by Hon''ble High Court of H.P. in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 titled Rakesh Kumar and others vs. State of H.P. and others. Hon''ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 titled Rakesh Kumar and other vs. State of H.P. and others did not hold that benefit of work charge status should be given to the employee in the establishment in which work charged post is abolished. In view of the fact that cadre of work charged post stood abolished in IPH department hence it is held that benefit of order announced by Hon''ble High Court of H.P. in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 titled Rakesh Kumar and others vs. State of H.P. decided on dated 28.7.2010 could not be granted to the petitioner in the ends of justice. In view of above stated facts point No. 1 is answered against the petitioner.

Final Order

In view of findings on point No. 1 civil writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.