JIA LAL Vs. STATE OF H. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the year 1984, petitioner was appointed as forest worker on daily wage basis in the respondent-Department. Though, subsequently vide office order dated 2.3.1998, services of the petitioner came to be regularized on the recommendation of the Screening Committee and with the approval of competent authority, but since work charge status was not granted to him on his having completed requisite period, he approached this Court by way of CWP(T) No.9178 of 2008, which came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 8.10.2010. Vide aforesaid judgment, respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the directions given in Mool Raj Upadhayaya case and Gauri Dutt case.

(2.) Pursuant to the aforesaid directions issued by this Court, case of the petitioner was referred to the Government to accord approval. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests vide office letter dated 6.6.2011, conveyed the approval for grant of work charge status in favour of the petitioner w.e.f.1.5.1994 to 8.1.1998. The arrears were calculated and worked out to Rs. 1, 76, 164/- and same stands released in favour of the petitioner. Since after superannuation, services of the petitioner rendered in the capacity of work charge status has not been taken into consideration towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retrial benefits, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein following reliefs:- 1) That a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions may kindly be issued directing the respondents to recalculate the pensionary benefits of the petitioner after having counted his daily wage service and service rendered on work charge basis as a qualifying service and grant pension to the petitioner in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narata Singh's case alongwith all consequential arrear and interest @ 9%. 2) That the respondents may further be directed to pay the gratuity and Leave Encashment by the respondent department @ 9% p.a. for the period of service rendered on daily wage basis in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of H.P. in Lashkari Ram's case.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that issue with regard to counting work charge services towards qualifying services for the purpose of pension and other retrial benefits stands settled vide judgment dated 18.12.2018, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2384 of 2018, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Sh. Matwar Singh and another and judgment dated 7.12.2018 passed in CWP No. 2882 of 2018 titled as State of H.P and others versus Uttam Chand and another, wherein Division Bench of this Court having taken note of its earlier judgment dated 6.3.2013 passed by this Court in CWP No.6167 of 2012 titled as Sukru Ram versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others and the judgment passed by Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled Kesar Chand versus State of Punjab and others, 1988 94 PunLR 223, has categorically held that work charge services followed by regular appointment will count towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retrial benefits.