Himachal Pradesh High Court
Bhoop Singh vs State Of H.P. & Another on 16 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
CWP No. : 8146 of 2021
Reserved on : 02.05.2025.
Decided on :16.05.2025
Bhoop Singh ....Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & another
...Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the petitioner : Ms. Samriti Sharma Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Baldev Negi,
Additional Advocate
General.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge
The instant petition has been filed for the following
substantive reliefs:
(i) That the directions may kindly be issued to the
respondents to regularize the services of the
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
( 2025:HHC:14376-DB )
petitioner on completion of 8 years service from the
year, 2003 as Beldar in view of the policy of
regularization and in view of the judgment of the
Rakesh Kumar (supra), immediately with all
consequential benefits.
(i)(a) That the impugned office order dated
12.11.2020, Annexure P-6, issued by the Divisional
Forest Officer, Kunihar Forest Division i.e
respondent No.2, may kindly be quashed and set
aside, being illegal and arbitrary.
(ii) That the respondents may also be directed to
count the period during 2001 & 2002 spent by the
petitioner under Sanjhi Van Yojna at Rampur for the
purpose of completion of 240 days at par with other
similar situate persons.”
2. The petitioner was engaged as daily wage Beldar
under Kunihar Forest Division in the year 1984. Petitioner
remained on daily wages till his retirement. According to the
petitioner, he has retired on 30.06.2016, but the respondents
have stated the date of retirement of the petitioner to be
30.06.2014.
3. The petitioner has been fighting for regularization of
his services under the regularization policy of the State
Government. According to petitioner, he had completed eight
years of continuous daily wage service with 240 days in each
calendar year and had thereby become eligible for
3
( 2025:HHC:14376-DB )
regularization but the respondents had wrongfully denied the
benefit of regularization policy to him.
4. The petitioner in the first instance raised an
industrial dispute in the year 2006 seeking regularization
of his service on completion of ten years w.e.f. 01.01.1994.
The appropriate authority made a reference to the
Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Shimla registered
as reference No. 4 of 2009. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Shimla answered the reference in negative
vide award dated 03.09.2014 by holding that the
petitioner had not completed continuous daily wage
service of eight years between 1984 to 1994. The
petitioner assailed the award dated 03.09.2014, passed by
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla before this
Court by way of CWP No. 7554 of 2014. The said writ was
dismissed on 28.2.2019, however, liberty was reserved in
favour of the petitioner to make a claim for regularization
by availing an appropriate mechanism only with respect to
the years following 1994.
4
( 2025:HHC:14376-DB )
5. The petitioner then filed OA No. 2436 of 2019
before the Erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal.
Learned Tribunal disposed of the said Original Application
in following terms:
6. ” In view of the above, the original application is
disposed of in terms of the aforementioned
judgment in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 and the
connected matters and keeping in view the fact
that the applicant had put in more than 240 days
in each calendar year beginning from 2003 to
2013, with a direction to the
respondents/competent authority, that subject to
the above verification and on finding the applicant
to be similarly situate as above, benefit of the said
judgment, if the same has attained
finality/implemented, shall be extended to him
alongwith consequential benefits, if any, as per
law, within three months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order before
the said authority by the applicant.”
6. In compliance, the Divisional Forest Officer,
Kunihar Forest Division passed an office order dated
12.11.2020 (Annexure P-6) and thereby rejected the case
of the petitioner on the ground that since the H.P. Forest
Department was not a work charge establishment, the
case of petitioner was not similar to the case Rakesh
5
( 2025:HHC:14376-DB )
Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors. CWP No. 2735 of 2010
decided on 28.07.2010.
7. The office order dated 12.11.2020, passed by
respondent No.2 has been assailed in the instant petition.
8. Respondents by way of their reply have
supported the impugned office order dated 12.11.2020, by
reiterating the stand that the Forest Department was not
work charge establishment and hence the petitioner was
not entitled to the benefit of judgment passed in the case
of Rakesh Kumar (supra). It has also been contended by
the respondents that the petitioner had retired in the year
2014 and though he had completed eight years of
continuous daily wage service in the year 2011 but his
service could not be regularized for want of vacancy.
Lastly, an objection as to delay and latches has also been
raised by alleging that the petitioner had retired in the
year 2014 and had belatedly filed the instant petition in
the year 2021.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have also gone through the record of the case carefully.
6
( 2025:HHC:14376-DB )
10. The respondents have relied upon man days
chart with respect to the services rendered by the
petitioner on daily wage basis as Annexure R-1 to the
reply. The same chart finds place in impugned office order
dated 12.11.2020 also. As per the stand of the
respondents, the petitioner had completed 240 days
service in each calendar years w.e.f. 1995 to 2000 and
thereafter from 2003 till the date of his retirement. During
the years 2001 and 2002, the petitioner is stated to have
rendered services for 218 and 213 days, respectively.
11. It is not in dispute that the regularization policy
of the State Government provided for regularization of
services of daily wage employees on completion of eight
years of continuous daily wage service with 240 days in
each calendar year.
12. The petitioner has made specific averment in
the petition that non completion of 240 days daily wage
service attributed to the petitioner for the year 2001 and
2002 is fallacious for the reasons firstly that during these
years, the petitioner had additionally worked at Rampur in
7
( 2025:HHC:14376-DB )
“Sanjhi Van Yojna” and secondly the deficiency, if any,
was on account of fictional breaks given by the
respondents in order to defeat the right of regularization of
the petitioner.
13. In respect of the averments that the petitioner
had worked in Sanjhi Van Yojna at Rampur during the
year 2001 and 2002, petitioner has placed reliance on the
evidence recorded by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour
Court, Shimla in reference No.4 of 2009 and more
particularly on the statement of one Sh. Bali Ram (PW-2)
recorded therein.
14. The averments made by the petitioner in the
petition in this regard have not been specifically denied or
controverted by the respondents. Para 12 of the award
dated 03.09.2014 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Shimla in reference No.4 of 2009
substantiates the contention of the petitioner.
15. Similarly, there is no specific denial to the
averments that the fictional breaks were granted to the
petitioner. The plea raised by the petitioner appears to be
8
( 2025:HHC:14376-DB )
genuine and bonafide keeping in view the fact that as per
Annexure R-1 i.e. man days chart of petitioner prepared
by the respondents, he had continuously worked for much
more than 240 days in each calendar year right from 1995
till the date of his retirement except for the years 2001
and 2002 in which also he had statedly worked for 218
and 213 days respectively. In such circumstances, the
fictional breaks given to the petitioner during the year
2001 and 2002 are liable to be declared intentional and
deliberate and having been given to defeat the rights of
petitioner. Hence, for the reasons stated above, the
petitioner is deemed to have rendered 240 days of service
even during the years 2001 and 2002.
16. The fictional breaks granted by employer in the
case of daily waged or temporary employees has been
subject of deprecation by the courts. Reference can be
made, to judgment passed by Hon’ble supreme Court in
Mohammad Abdul Qadir Vs Director General of Police
Assam (2009) 6 SCC 611; Judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Division Bench of this Court in Dharam Chand Vs State of
9
( 2025:HHC:14376-DB )
Himachal Pradesh and others CWPOA 6089 of 2020
decided on 28.11.2023 and judgment dated 22.8.2024
passed by another Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in
a bunch of matters with CWPOA 7438 of 2020 titled Gopal
Singh Vs State of H.P. as lead case, to note a few.
17. In alternative, there is no denying the fact that
the petitioner had completed eight years of continuous
service on daily wage basis with 240 days in each calendar
year from 2003 onwards till his retirement. That by itself
made him eligible for regularization under the
regularization policy of State Government.
18. The impugned office order dated 12.11.2020,
reveals that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected
only on the ground that the Forest Department was not
work charge establishment and for such reasons the
petitioner could not be granted benefit of judgment in
Rakesh Kumar (supra).
19. It will be appropriate to take note of the relevant
part of the judgment passed by Division Bench of this
Court in Rakesh Kumar (supra) which reads as under:
10
( 2025:HHC:14376-DB )
7. “In the above circumstances, these Writ
Petitions are disposed of directing the
respondents to consider the case(s) of the
petitioners herein for conferment of work-
charged status, subject to their eligibility in
terms of the policy dated 3.4.2000 and as
explained in 6.5.2000 policy, as extracted above.
Needful in this regard shall be done within a
period of three months from the date of
production of the copy of this judgment by the
respective petitioners. Needless to say that the
question of conferment of work-charged status
does not arise in case the establishment ceases
to be a work charged establishment and hence,
the conferment of the status will not arise after
the abolition of the work charged status of the
establishment.”
20. The impugned office order dated 12.11.2020
cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the same
was result of a total misreading of the judgment in
Rakesh Kumar (supra) by respondent No.2. The petitioner
was not claiming the benefit of work charge, rather his
specific case from the beginning was to claim
regularization under the regularization policy of the State
Government. Thus, the claim of the petitioner has been
rejected on material totally extraneous to the context.
11
( 2025:HHC:14376-DB )
21. Even otherwise the similar plea raised by the
Forest Department of the State Government in support of
its stand to not grant work charge status to its employees
on the ground that the Department was not a work charge
establishment, stands rejected by this Court more than
once. In CWP 3111 of 2016 titled State of H.P & others
Vs. Ashwani Kumar, decided on 10.05.2018, it has
been held as under:
6. “Having carefully perused material
available on record, especially judgment
rendered by this Court in Ravi Kumar v. State of
H.P. and Ors, as referred herein above, which
has been further upheld by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Special Leave to appeal (C) No.
33570//2010 titled State of HP and Ors. v.
Pritam Singh and connected matters, this Court
has no hesitation to conclude that there is no
error in the finding recorded by the learned
Tribunal that work charge establishment is not
a pre-requisite for conferment of work charge
status. The Division Bench of this Court while
rendering its decision in CWP No. 2735 of 2010,
titled Rakesh Kumar decided on 28.7.2010, has
held that regularization has no concern with the
conferment of work charge status after lapse of
time, rather Court in aforesaid judgment has
categorically observed that while deciding the
issue, it is to be borne in mind that the
petitioners are only class-IV worker (Beldars)
12
( 2025:HHC:14376-DB )
and the schemes announced by the
Government, clearly provides that the
department concerned should consider the
workmen concerned for bringing them on the
work charged category and as such, there is an
obligation cast upon the department to consider
the case of daily waged workman for conferment
of daily work charge status, being on a work
charged establishment on completion of
required number of years in terms of the policy.
In the aforesaid judgment, it has been
specifically held that benefits which accrued on
workers as per policy are required to be
conferred by the department.”
22. Similarly, in LPA No.160 of 2021 titled as
State of H.P. vs. Reema Devi, decided on 23.05.2022,
it has been held as under:
11. Now adverting to the facts of the instant case,
the grant of work charge status to late Shri Het
Ram has been denied on the ground that Himachal
Pradesh Forests Department had no work charge
establishment. In Ashwani Kumar‘s case (supra)
also right of the petitioner therein for grant of work
charge status was considered when the HPPWD had
ceased to be a work charge establishment.
12. This Court while delivering judgment in
Ashwani Kumar‘s case (supra) had, thus, decided
the principle that work charge establishment was
not a pre-requisite for conferment of work charge
13
( 2025:HHC:14376-DB )status and thus, would not confine only to the
petitioner in the said case. In view of this, the
contention raised on behalf of the appellants that
the judgment in Ashwani Kumar‘s case (supra) was
a judgement in personam, cannot be sustained.”
23. Noticeably, the respondents have now come up
with an additional objection that the petitioner was not
entitled to regularization even in the year 2011 for want of
vacancy. It is evident from the office order dated
20.11.2020 that the case of the petitioner was not rejected
on said ground. That being so, the impugned order dated
12.11.2020, will have to be understood by the reasons
mentioned therein and the respondents cannot
supplement by drafting fresh reasons in their reply
submitted to the instant petition. In Mohinder Singh Gill
vs. Chief Election Commission (1978) 1 S.C.C 504
such an exercise has been held to be impermissible for the
reason that otherwise an invalid order in the beginning
may, by the time it comes to the Court on account of a
challenge, get validated by additional grounds later
brought out.
14
( 2025:HHC:14376-DB )
24. Additionally, it can also be seen that the for
raising such a plea the respondents have not even laid
any factual foundation.
25. The objection of the respondents with respect to
delay and latches in filing the instant petition also
deserves to be ignored for the simple reason that the
petitioner had filed CWP No. 7554 of 2014, assailing the
award dated 03.09.2014 passed by Labour Court-cum-
Industrial Tribunal, Shimla in reference No. 4 of 2009
which was decided on 28.02.2019. It was thereafter that
petitioner filed OA No. 2436 of 2019, which was also
decided on 03.07.2019. The impugned order was passed
on 12.11.2020 and thus the instant petition cannot be
said to be suffering from delay and latches.
26. In the light of above discussion, the petition is
allowed. The impugned office order dated 12.11.2020
Annexure P-6 is quashed and set-aside. The respondents
are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for
regularization by treating him to be in continuous daily
wage service with completion of 240 days in each calendar
15
( 2025:HHC:14376-DB )
year w.e.f. 1995. The required exercise shall be completed
by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the
date of passing of this judgment,
27. Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending
miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Satyen Vaidya)
th
16 May, 2025 Judge
(Veena).
[ad_1]
Source link