HUKAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE has taken a conscious decision on the basis of judgment rendered by the Court in CWP No. 778/2006, titled as State of H.P. vs. Gauri Dutt decided on 29.12.2007 to confer work charge status on those workmen who were engaged prior to 31.12.1993 and have completed 240 days in each calendar year as per the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhayay's case. The Finance Department created posts for the grant of work charge status from retrospective date on the completion of ten years. The workmen were conferred with work charge status prior to notification dated 10.5.2001 wherein rule 56(b) of Fundamental Rules was amended by reducing the retirement age from 60 years to 58 years. Few of the workmen were paid arrears of wages erroneously.

(2.) PETITIONER was regularized w.e.f. 24.3.2003 as per 8 years' policy from prospective date. He has retired on 31.8.2006. His date of birth was 25.8.1948. Since he had worked with 240 days from the year 1986, i.e. prior to 31.12.1993, he was conferred with work charge status with effect from 1.1.1996 vide order dated 26.3.2008. He retired on 31.8.2006. However, a sum of Rs. 2,09,136/ - on account of arrears was paid to the petitioner. The fact of the matter is that petitioner has not actually worked with effect from 1.9.2006 to 31.8.2008. The Court in CWP No. 4990 of 2010, titled as Mast Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 29.11.2011 has directed the State to recover such amount in accordance with law from those workmen, who were made irregular payment.

(3.) IT would be apt at this stage to quote operative portion of judgment rendered in CWP No. 4990 of 2010 decided on 29.11.2011, titled as Mast Ram vs. State of H.P. and others and analogous matters, as under: