HANS RAJ Vs. HIMUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dtd. 15/2/2014, Annexure P-1, whereby representations having been filed by the petitioners herein, in terms of order dtd. 21/8/2013, passed by this Court in CWP No. 6162 of 2013, praying therein for conferment of work charge status from the date they completed 8 years regular service, came to be rejected, petitioners approached erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by way of filing Original Application bearing O.A. No. 4513 of 2015, which now on account of abolishment of Tribunal, stands transferred to this Court and has been re-registered as CWPOA No. 6259 of 2019, praying therein for following main relief:-"That Annexure P-1, may be quashed and the respondents may be ordered to grant work charge status to the applicants from the dates they completed 8 years service, with all the benefits incidental thereof."

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that petitioners namely S/Sh. Hans Raj, Sharwan Kumar, Mohinder Kumar, Desh Raj, Naresh Kumar and Sh. Geeta Ram came to be appointed as Class-IV employees on daily wage basis in Himachal Pradesh Nagar Vikas Pradikaran (now renamed as HIMUDA) w.e.f. 5/5/1993, 1/9/1993, 1/3/2001, 3/6/1999, 15/6/1999 and 4/4/1999, respectively. Subsequently, all the above named persons came to be deployed in Printing and Stationery Department on secondment basis w.e.f. 26/11/2002, 26/11/2002, 24/11/2008, 1/6/2009, 1/6/2009 and 1/6/2009, respectively and during their employment in the aforesaid department, they were ordered to be regularized against the posts of Press Daftri, Press Mazdoor and Binding Machine Attendants, respectively. Since, despite petitioners' having completed 8 years of regular service with HIMUDA, they were not granted work charge status, they filed CWP bearing No. 6162 of 2013 in this Court, praying therein that they be also conferred work charge status in the light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2020, titled as Rakesh Kumar and ors. vs. State of H.P., decided on 28/7/2010. Division Bench of this Court vide its order dtd. 21/8/2013, while disposing of the aforesaid petition filed by the petitioners, permitted them to file representation to the department concerned, seeking therein aforesaid relief with the further direction to the department to consider and decide the same in the light of judgment rendered in Rakesh Kumar's case supra. Vide order dtd. 15/2/2014, Annexure P-1, representations having been filed by petitioners came to be rejected by C.E.O-cum-Secretary, HIMUDA on the ground that they did not complete 8 years of continuous service, as on 31/3/2000 on daily wage basis with 240 days in each calender year in HIMUDA and as such, they are not entitled to benefit. In the aforesaid background, petitioner have filed petition at hand, praying therein relief, as reproduced hereinabove.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the order impugned in the instant proceedings, this Court finds that there is no dispute that at the first instance all the petitioners were engaged against Class-IV Posts in HIMUDA w.e.f. 5/5/1993, 1/9/1993, 1/3/2001, 3/6/1999, 15/6/1999 and 4/4/1999, respectively.