Himachal Pradesh High Court
Suman Kumari vs State Of H.P. &Ors on 21 April, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.3924 of 2023
Date of decision: 21.04.2025
Suman Kumari. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. &Ors. ...Respondents.
Coram:
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner : Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents : Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan,
Deputy Advocate General, for
respondents No.1 to 5-State.
: Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for
respondent No.6.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to
confer work-charge status upon her deceased husband (Sh.
Chander Shekhar), w.e.f. 01.01.2000, on completion of 10
years of continuous daily-wage service, in accordance with
the decision rendered in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of
H.P.1. In essence, the petitioner seeks grant of family pension
with effect from 20.06.2000, i.e. the date of death of her
husband, along with all consequential benefits.
2. Facts of the case.
1
1994 Supl. (2) SCC 316
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
-2-
2(i). Petitioner’s husband, Sh. Chander Shekhar, was
initially engaged as Beldar in the respondent-Public Works
Department during the year 1989. He worked as daily waged
Beldar w.e.f. 01.01.1990 to 31.03.1993. From 01.04.1993 to
20.06.2000, he worked as daily waged Work Inspector. It is
an admitted position of the respondents that petitioner’s
husband completed 10 years of daily waged service with 240
plus days in each calendar year w.e.f. 01.01.1990 to
31.12.1999. He died on 21.06.2000 in an accident while
discharging his duties.
2(ii). Petitioner represented on 29.12.2015 and
thereafter, on 20.02.2017, requesting the respondent-
Department to grant work-charge status to her deceased
husband retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.2000 to 21.06.2000, i.e.
till the date of death of her husband. This relief was prayed
in light of decision rendered in Mool Raj Upadhyaya1 case.
The relief claimed by the petitioner is to earn pensionary
benefits.
2(iii). Respondents have admitted in their reply that:-
The aforesaid representations of the petitioner were received
by them; The representations were examined by the
-3-respondent-Department; Petitioner’s claim of her husband
having rendered 10 years of daily waged service with 240
days & above in each calendar year w.e.f. 01.01.1990 till the
date of his death, was verified to be correct as per the
records. Accordingly, on 08.11.2017, respondent No.2-
Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, Himachal
Pradesh, recommended the case of the petitioner for
conferring work-charge status upon her late husband w.e.f.
01.01.2000 and for grant of pensionary benefits in her favour
by according necessary sanction/approval/relaxation w.r.t.
medical fitness under Rule 54(iii) of CCS (Pension) Rules.
2(iv). Respondent No.1 through its office letter dated
10.05.2018 rejected the prayer of the petitioner with
following reasoning:-
“This matter has been examined in this
department in consultation with Finance
(Pension) Department. The Finance (Pension)
Department has observed that in the instant case
the department has not examined the matter
with regards to grant of the benefit of conferment
of work charge status in favour of late Sh.
Chander Shekhar, Beldar (Prior to 15.5.2003) at
its own level in the light of Apex Court ruling
delivered in Mool Raj case. Besides, what is the
justification for grant of work charge status in the
present case after lapse of more than 18
years.Moreover, Smt.Suman Kumari W/o late Sh.
Chander Shekhar (Beldar) had already been
given appointment in Govt. department on
compassionate grounds.”
-4-
Feeling aggrieved petitioner has preferred this writ
petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
considered the case file.
4(i). As already noticed, the facts are not in dispute.
Petitioner’s late husband had completed more than 10 years
of continuous service with minimum 240 days in each
calendar year upto 31.12.1999. He died while in service after
meeting an accident during the course of discharging his
duties. Respondents in their reply, more particularly, office
letter dated 08.11.2017 (Annexure R-II), have clearly
admitted that Sh. Chander Shekhar-petitioner’s husband
died on 21.06.2000 before the conferment of work-charge
status upon him. After his death, work-charge status was
not conferred upon him as it used to be conferred from
prospective date, this recourse was not possible in case of
petitioner’s husband in view of his untimely death. However,
the action of the respondents in conferring work-charge
status prospectively upon the daily waged employees was set
-5-
aside in State of H.P. vs. Gehar Singh 2. In the aforesaid
case, automatic work-charge status was allowed to all
workmen upon completion of 10 years of continuous daily
waged service.
4(ii). The above being the admitted factual and legal
position, it was for the respondents to have conferred work-
charge status upon petitioner’s late husband. Instead of
doing the duty cast upon them in law, the respondents
compelled the petitioner to represent to them and then to
move the Court for seeking the benefits which flowed to her
late husband.
4(iii). The respondents have not denied that in similar
circumstances, similar benefits have been granted to one
Smt. Brahmi Devi by exercising the powers of relaxation
w.r.t. medical fitness under Rule 54(iii) of CCS (Pension)
Rules, in favour of deceased workmen/incumbent.
4(iv). At this stage, it will also be appropriate to make
reference to The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Versus Surajmani & Anr.3, wherein in bunch of Special
Leave Petitions, including the ones instituted by the
2
Latest HLJ 2006 (SC) 363
3
Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, decided alongwith connected civil appeals on 06.02.2025.
-6-
respondent-Public Works Department, the writ petitioners
were held entitled for grant of work-charge status from the
date of completion of requisite number of years of service, in
light of dicta laid down in State of H.P. & Ors. Vs. Sh.
Ashwani Kumar4 and the judgment in Mool Raj
Upadhyaya1case. Relevant portion from the decision is
extracted hereinafter:-
“4. This Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P.
reported in 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316 held as under:
“2. A Scheme for Betterment (Appointment)
Regularisation of Muster-Roll/Daily-Wagers in
Himachal Pradesh has been prepared by the
Government of Himachal Pradesh and the
same has been placed on record along with the
supplementary affidavit of Shri K.J.B.V.
Subramanyam dated 7-12-1992 in WP (C) No.
249 of 1988.
xxx xxx xxx
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
4
Civil Appeal No.5753 of 2019 decided on 22.07.2019
-7-
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
wagesat 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
regularised in a phased manner on the
basis of seniority-cum-suitability
including physical fitness. On
regularisation 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.”
8. However, in order to allay the apprehension of the
State as expressed thereunder and to safeguard the interest
of the State which otherwise would have burdened the
exchequer with extra benefits being conferred on the
employees who had not been regularly appointed, this Court
has, as a succor to the State, restricted the claim or, in other
words, modified the order of the Tribunal as affirmed by the
High Court by arriving at a conclusion that the
petitioners/appellants therein would be entitled to the
notional benefits of the order passed by the Tribunal and
accordingly disposed of the said appeal.
10. For the cumulative reasons aforestated, we are of the
considered view that the dicta laid down by this Court vide
order dated 22.07.2019 in Ashwani Kumar‘s (Supra) case
which is based on the judgment of Mool Raj Upadhyaya
(Supra) holds the field and would also be applicable to the
Respondents herein who had approached the Tribunal or
the High Court seeking similar relief. As such, the
Respondents shall be entitled for grant of ‘work-charged’
status from the date of completion of 8 years of service.
-8-
However, we hold that the relief in the present appeals will
be limited to notional benefits as explained in paragraph 3
and 4 of Ashwani Kumar‘s (Supra) case in Civil Appeal
No(s). 5753 of 2019 and the present appeals stand disposed
of accordingly with no order as to costs.”
4(v). In view of above, the reasons for rejection given by
the respondents in their office letter dated 31.05.2018,
cannot be sustained. It may also be mentioned that
petitioner’s employment on compassionate grounds is not a
bar in itself for examining her prayer for conferment of work-
charge status upon her deceased husband in accordance
with law. The latter is an independent claim based upon
service rendered by petitioner’s husband.
4. In view of above, the present writ petition is
allowed by directing the respondents to consider the case of
the petitioner afresh for grant of work-charge status upon
her late husband-Sh. Chander Shekhar on completion of 10
years of daily waged service in accordance with law laid down
in Mool Raj Upadhyaya1 case read with Surajmani3 case and
also keeping in view the observations made hereto above.
This exercise be carried out within a period of six weeks. The
order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner.
In case, upon consideration, petitioner is held entitled to
-9-
consequential benefits, including family pension, the same
be released in her favour.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to
stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
21st April, 2025 Judge
(Pardeep)
[ad_1]
Source link