Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3720 (HP)

Amin Chand v. State of H. P.

2025-09-12

Ranjan Sharma

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. Petitioner, a Hydram Supervisor [Class-III] on regular basis, has come up before this Court, seeking the following prayer:- “That respondent corporation may be directed to regularize/confer work charge status to the applicant after completion of 10 years of daily wage service with all consequential benefits in view of the judgment rendered in Mool Raj Upadhayay’s case i.e. w.e.f. 1.1.1996 with all consequential benefits.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Petitioner was engaged/appointed as a Hydram Supervisor, against the sanctioned post, created under CART i.e. Council for Advancement of Rural Technology in the Desert Development Programme [DDP] Kaza on 01.07.1986, by Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Sub DRDA, Kaza and the petitioner continued in service on the said post till his regularization on 09.12.2003, Annexure A-1. Petitioner worked as Hydram Supervisor under the Respondent No.4 on regular basis, w.e.f. 09.12.2003, till 09.10.2007. However, w.e.f. 10.10.2007, the petitioner was sent on secondment to Irrigation and Public Health [IPH] Department and was posted in Jal Shakti Vibhag Division, Bilaspur, on secondment basis, where he joined on 10.10.2007 [Annexure A-3] and continued to serve there on secondment basis till his superannuation on 31.01.2017. In this background, petitioner has claimed conferment of work charged status or regularization from the date of completion of 10 years of continuous service, in the light of the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya Versus State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316, with all consequential benefits. PROCEEDINGS: STAND OF RESPONDENTS BEFORE THIS COURT: 3. Upon issuance of notice, the Respondent -IPH have filed a Reply-Affidavit dated 13.12.2015, stating that the petitioner is previously working on secondment basis in IPH Department. 3(i). Respondent No.3 herein-Director, Rural Development, Himachal Pradesh, filed Reply-Affidavit dated 04.09.2023, indicating that, the petitioner was engaged as Hydram Supervisor under Desert Development Programme [DDP] Kaza by Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Project Director, Kaza on 01.07.1986 against the sanctioned post, on daily basis, but without any approval of the Department. In Para 4 of the Reply-Affidavit of Preliminary Submissions, Respondent No. 3 admitted that the services of the petitioner were regularized against the post of Hydram Supervisor on 09.12.2003, Annexure A-1. In Para 4 of the Reply-Affidavit of Preliminary Submissions, Respondent No. 3 admitted that the services of the petitioner were regularized against the post of Hydram Supervisor on 09.12.2003, Annexure A-1. Para-5 of Preliminary Submissions of the Reply-Affidavit, indicates that on the basis of letter dated 03.10.2007 issued by Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation and Public Health Department, the services of petitioner were deployed from the Office of Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum- Chief Executive Officer, Sub DRDA, Spiti at Kaza to Irrigation and Public Health Department, on secondment basis, on 06.10.2007 and in response thereto the petitioner had joined, on secondment in IPH Department, on 10.10.2007. It is averred that petitioner retired from IPH Department, during secondment, on 31.01.2017. As far as the claim of the petitioner for considering his case for regularization or conferment of work charged status on the basis of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya, the Reply-Affidavit indicates that since the petitioner was not an employee of the Rural Development Department, therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for said benefit. 3(ii). Respondent No.4-District Rural Development Agency was impleaded as Party-Respondent by this Court. Consequently, the Respondent No.4 filed a Reply-Affidavit dated 02.08.2024, of Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, DRDA, Lahaul & Spiti at Keylong, submitting the factual matrix, that the petitioner was engaged as Hydram Supervisor on daily wage basis against vacant post, by Project Director-cum-Chief Executive Officer-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner under Desert Development Project Director, on 01.07.1986 and services of the petitioner have been regularized by the aforesaid Respondent No.4 on 09.12.2003, Annexure A-1. Reply-affidavit further indicates that petitioner had submitted an option and he has now been absorbed in IPH Department where the petitioner is still working on secondment basis. In Para-6 (II) of Reply-Affidavit on merit, it is stated that orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya, has no concern in the instant case. 4. Heard, Mr. Pushpinder Kumar Verma, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents. 5. Before proceeding to analyze the rival contentions, it is relevant to have the recap of the mandate of law in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya Versus State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316, mandating the grant of conferment of work charged status and regularization of daily waged-Muster-Roll Workers, in the following terms:- “4. 5. Before proceeding to analyze the rival contentions, it is relevant to have the recap of the mandate of law in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya Versus State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316, mandating the grant of conferment of work charged status and regularization of daily waged-Muster-Roll Workers, in the following terms:- “4. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we modify the said scheme by substituting paragraphs 1 to 4 of the same by the following paragraphs: "(1) Daily-wage/muster-roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled, who have completed 10 years or more of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31-12-1993, shall be appointed as work- charged employees with effect from 1-1-1994 and shall be put in the time- scale of pay applicable to the corresponding lowest grade in the Government; (2) daily-wage/muster-roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled, who have not completed 10 years of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31-12-1993, shall be appointed as work-charged employees with effect from the date they complete the said period of 10 years of service and on such appointment they shall be put in the time- scale of pay applicable to the lowest grade in the Government; (3) daily-wage/muster-roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled who have not completed 10 years of service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31-12-1993, shall be paid daily wages at the rates prescribed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time for daily-wage employees falling in Class III and Class IV till they are appointed as work-charged employees in accordance with paragraph 2; (4) daily-wage/muster-roll workers shall be regularized in a phased manner on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability including physical fitness. On regularization they shall be put in the minimum of the time-scale payable to the corresponding lowest grade applicable to the Government and would be entitled to all other benefits available to regular government servants of the corresponding grade." 5. The scheme, as modified, shall be implemented with effect from 1-1-1994 and if any excess amount has been received by any employee on the basis of the interim orders passed by this Court, the same shall not be required to be refunded by him.” 6. The scheme, as modified, shall be implemented with effect from 1-1-1994 and if any excess amount has been received by any employee on the basis of the interim orders passed by this Court, the same shall not be required to be refunded by him.” 6. After passing of judgment in Mool Raj Upadhyaya [supra], the issue as to whether a daily waged/muster roll worker, who was regularized can still raise a claim for conferment of work charged status, has been answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and Others versus Gehar Singh, (2007) 12 SCC 43 , mandating that notwithstanding regularization, a daily wager has a valid claim for conferment of work charged status, in the following terms:- “18. The aforesaid case made out by the State of Himachal Pradesh before the High Court was a clear departure from the directions given in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case. The respondents had only claimed the benefit of the Betterment Scheme which was placed before this Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case and had prayed for work charged status from 1st January, 2000, before the Tribunal whereas the change in policy was brought about on 6th May, 2000. It is on that basis that the Tribunal directed that the respondents be given work charged status with effect from 1st January, 2000. 19. Notwithstanding the fact that the services of the respondents have been regularised with effect from 1-1-2003 and they have joined their posts from that date without protest, they cannot, in our view, be denied the benefits as directed to be given to them by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court which had already accrued to them under the Scheme which was approved in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case.” ANALYSIS: 7. Taking into account the factual matrix and the mandate of law, as referred to above, this Court is of the considered view, that the prayer of the petitioner for conferment of work charged status from the date of completion of 10 years of continuous daily waged service as an Hydram Supervisor w.e.f. 01.07.1996, carries weight, for the following reasons:- 7(i). Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as a Hydram Supervisor, against a vacant post, under CART, in Desert Development Agency [DDA], on daily waged basis, on 01.07.1986. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as a Hydram Supervisor, against a vacant post, under CART, in Desert Development Agency [DDA], on daily waged basis, on 01.07.1986. The petitioner completed continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year on 30.06.1996 and on completion of 10 years of continuous service, the petitioner became eligible and entitled for conferment of work charged status from 01.07.1996, in terms of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya [supra]. 7(ii). Once the petitioner had completed the requisite 10 years of continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year from 01.07.1986 to 30.06.1996, then, the petitioner is eligible and entitled for grant of work charged status w.e.f. 01.07.1996 but the denial thereof is contrary to law in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya [supra], by Respondent No.4. 7(iii). Conferment of work charged status on completion of 10 years of continuous service, carries weight when, a perusal of the regularization orders dated 09.12.2003, Annexure A-1, establishes that the petitioner was engaged as Hydram Supervisor on 01.07.1986 against a created post, under Desert Development Programme under CART by Respondent No.4-Deputy Commissioner, Lahaul & Spiti. 7(iv). Eligibility and entitlement of the petitioner for conferment of work charged status cannot be denied, restricted, curtailed or regulated by taking a plea that the judgment in case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya [supra], has no concern in the instant case, is highly deprecated. Once the Hon’ble Apex Court has mandated a law, then, such dictum of law is binding on all concerned. In these circumstances, the plea of Learned State Counsel is not tenable and is out- rightly rejected. 7(v). The judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Mool Raj Upadhayaya and Gehar Singh [supra] were judgments in rem, mandating to grant Work Charge Status to daily wager(s) from the date of completion of 10 years of continuous daily waged service, notwithstanding the fact that a daily wager, alike the petitioner was regularized from a subsequent date. 7(vi). 7(vi). Once the judgments in the case of Mool Raj Upadhayaya and Gehar Singh [supra] are judgments in rem, therefore, the State Authorities cannot deny the conferment of Work Charge Status to the petitioner from the date of completion of 10 years of continuous daily wage service w.e.f. 01.07.1996, by adopting a pick and choose method, when, the benefit of Work Charge Status has been conferred on all other similarly placed daily wagers, working under the State Government or its Instrumentalities. In these circumstances, in order to ensure party and to avoid the charge of discrimination the claim of the petitioner for work charge status on completion of 10 years of continuous daily wage service w.e.f. 01.07.1996 as per the judgment in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya [supra] has merit and is accordingly granted. 7(vii). Learned State Counsel contends that once the petitioner stands regularized on 09.12.2003, Annexure A-1, then, the claim for work charged status, is not tenable. This plea is devoid of any merit, when, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Gehar Singh [supra] has mandated that even if a daily wager stands regularized still he has a right for conferment of work charged status on completion of 10 years continuous service as per mandate in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya [supra]. In these circumstances, the contention of the Learned State Counsel is without merit and rejected. 7(viii). Claim of the petitioner for work charged status has merit, for another reason, that the petitioner was engaged against the post of Hydram Supervisor on 01.07.1986 and was regularized on 09.12.2003, Annexure A-1. Even after regularization, the petitioner continued on regular post, as Hydram Supervisor, in the pay scale of Rs.3120-6200 and revised pay scales thereto, under Respondent No.4-Chief Executive Officer, Sub DRDA-cum- Additional Deputy Commissioner till 09.10.2007 i.e. prior to his deployment on 10.10.2007 in IPH Department from where he retired on 31.01.2017. Thus, once the petitioner had continued from 01.01.1986 to 30.06.1996 on daily wage basis and after his regularization in 2003 till October, 2007 on regular basis under Respondent No.4 then, the plea of the Respondents that the petitioner was appointed without seeking the permission of Director, Rural Development, Himachal Pradesh, is not at all tenable at this stage on facts as well as law. Moreover, the respondents have permitted the petitioner to continue in service as daily wager and thereafter on regular basis, then, in these circumstances, the respondents are estopped from raising such a plea, in the Reply-Affidavit(s) for the first time. 7(ix). Learned State Counsel has taken the plea of delay and latches. The above plea is not worthy of credence, for the reason, that once the State Authorities, including its Instrumentalities have extended the benefit of work charged status to hundreds of employees and implemented the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Mool Raj Upadhyaya and Gehar Singh [supra], then, the plea of delay and latches, is not tenable and the admissible benefits shall accrue to the petitioner as discussed in Para 7 (x) [infra]. 7(x). Action of the respondents in neither considering nor in extending benefit of work charged status to the petitioner on completion of 10 years continuous service w.e.f. 01.07.1986 to 30.06.1996 and denial of claim of the petitioner has resulted in depriving the petitioner of higher status, higher pay scale, higher pay fixation since 1996 till his prospective regularization on 09.12.2003, Annexure A-3 and the consequential benefits of higher pay fixation thereafter till retirement on 31.01.2017. In these circumstances, this Court finds force, in the contentions of Learned Counsel for the petitioner and accordingly directs the State Authorities- Respondents herein, especially The Respondent No.4 to confer work charged status to petitioner from the date of completion of 10 years of continuous daily wage service w.e.f. 01.07.1996 notionally. In these circumstances, this Court finds force, in the contentions of Learned Counsel for the petitioner and accordingly directs the State Authorities- Respondents herein, especially The Respondent No.4 to confer work charged status to petitioner from the date of completion of 10 years of continuous daily wage service w.e.f. 01.07.1996 notionally. Since the petitioner is claiming the benefit of work charge status in terms of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mool Raj Upadhyaya and Gehar Singh [supra] from the date of completion of 10 years of continuous daily wage service and such a claim was raised by way of an Original Application No. 2094 of 2015 filed before the State Administrative Tribunal on 13.07.2015 and upon abolition of Tribunal, the matter was transferred to this Court by converting it as CWPOA No.5310 of 2019, and therefore, this Court directs that upon grant of work charge status, the benefits in applicable pay scale shall accrue to the petitioner from the date of completion of 10 years of continuous daily wage service i.e. w.e.f. 01.07.1996 “notionally” till 13.07.2012 i.e. 3 years prior to the filing of the Original Application [OA No.2094 of 2015] on 13.07.2015, with all consequential benefits, including monetary benefit till the date of retirement on 31.01.2017, in the light of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India versus Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 ; Shiv Dass versus Union of India and Others; (2007) 9 SCC 274 ; State of Madhya Pradesh and Others versus Yogendra Shrivastava (2010) 12 SCC 538 and Asger Ibrahim Amin Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India (2016) 13 SCC 797 , followed in Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak versus Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation CA No.4134 of 2022 [2022 SCC Online S C 641] decided on 18.05.2022. Needless to say that based on such re-fixation of pay, upon grant of work charge status, all admissible retiral benefits, including the revised pension, be released to petitioner w.e.f. 01.02.2017 with all monetary benefits. 7(xi). Learned State Counsel submits that the actual monetary benefits be not released to the petitioner in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No.23016 of 2023 titled as the State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 7(xi). Learned State Counsel submits that the actual monetary benefits be not released to the petitioner in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No.23016 of 2023 titled as the State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. versus Surajmani & another alongwith connected matters, decided on 06.02.2025, whereby, “notional benefits” upon grant of work charge status have been granted. The above contention of Learned State Counsel is without merit, in the facts of the present case, for the reason, that the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Surajmani [supra] relates to the conferment of work charge status on completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service, whereas, the claim of the petitioner in the instant case, relates to the grant of work charge status upon completion of 10 years of continuous daily wage service in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya [supra], which was founded on the “Scheme for Betterment of Daily Wagers” framed by the State Authorities and such Scheme was approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mool Raj Upadhayaya [supra]. In these circumstances, the contention of Learned State Counsel is misconceived and is accordingly, turned down. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS: 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed. In these circumstances, the contention of Learned State Counsel is misconceived and is accordingly, turned down. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS: 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed. in the following terms:- (i) State Authorities are directed to grant work charged status to the petitioner from the date of completion of ten years of continuous service, as Hydram Supervisor w.e.f. 01.07.1996 or such like due dates in terms of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya and Gehar Singh [supra] ; (ii) Consequent upon conferment of work charge status in (i) above, the State Authorities are directed to fix the pay of the petitioner as Hydram Supervisor in applicable pay scale, “notionally” from the date of completion of 10 years of continuous daily wage service i.e. w.e.f. 01.07.1996 or such like due date till 13.07.2012 i.e. 3 years prior to the filing of OA No.2094 of 2015 [converted into CWPOA No.5310 of 2019]; (iii) State Authorities shall release all consequential benefits including monetary benefits to petitioner w.e.f. 13.07.2012, in applicable pay scale and then in revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2016 till retirement on 31.01.2017 and thereafter the benefit of higher pay for releasing revised retirement benefits, including Gratuity, Leave Encashment and the Revised Pension w.e.f. 01.02.2017 with all consequential benefits, including arrears to the petitioner; (iv) Benefits as in (i) to (iii) shall be released to petitioner within four weeks from today ; and (v) Parties to bear their respective costs. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition and all the pending miscellaneous application(s), shall also stand disposed of accordingly.