SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(HP) 507

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Ran Singh
Vs.
The State of H.P. & Ors.
Ramesh Kumar
Vs.
The State of H.P. & Ors.
Yog Raj
Vs.
The State of H.P. & Ors.
Man Singh
Vs.
The State of H.P. & Ors.
Sohan Lal
Vs.
The State of H.P. & Ors.
Surinder Singh
Vs.
The State of H.P. & Ors.
Rajender Kumar
Vs.
The State of H.P. & Ors.
Mohammad Gani
Vs.
The State of H.P. & Ors.
Rakesh Kumar
Vs.
The State of H.P. & Ors.
Sarita Kumari
Vs.
The State of H.P. & Ors.
Dumnu Ram
Vs.
The State of H.P. & Ors.
Surinder Kumar
Vs.
The State of H.P. & Ors.
Lata Rani
Vs.
The State of H.P. & Ors.
Anil Kumar
Vs.
The State of H.P. & Ors.
Surinder Kumar
Vs.
The State of H.P. & Ors.
Madan Lal
Vs.
The State of H.P. & Ors.
Vinod Kumar
Vs.
The State of H.P. & Ors.
Raj Kamal
Vs.
The State of H.P. & Ors.
Arti Devi
Vs.
The State of H.P. & Ors.
Surinder Kumar
Vs.
The State of H.P. & Ors.
Hem Singh
Vs.
The State of H.P. & Ors.
Mukesh Kumar
Vs.
The State of H.P. & Ors.
Satish Kumar
Vs.
The State of H.P. & Ors.
Balwant Singh
Vs.
The State of H.P. & Ors.
Karam Chand & Ors.
Vs.
The State of H.P. & Ors.
Rajesh Kumar & others
Vs.
The State of H.P. & Ors.
CWP No.7013 of 2013 a/w CWP Nos.6996, 7012, 7014 to 7027, 7036, 7037, 7039, 7041 to 7045, 8216 and 9804 of 2013
Decided On: 6.5.2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Mr. Sunil Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in CWP No.7013 of 2013 a/w CWP Nos.6996, 7012, 7014 to 7027, 7036, 7037, 7039, 7041 to 7045. Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate, for petitioner(s) in CWP Nos.8216 and 9804 of 2013.
For the Respondents:Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Addl. Advocate General, Ms. Parul Negi and Mr. Kush Sharma, Deputy Advocate Generals. (In all the above petitions)

Headnote:

Regularization - Employment Dispute - Notification No.PCH-HC(1)-5/2000 - 21.10.2000, 18.2.2005, 7.4.2008, 25.8.2012 - [Notification No.PCH-HC(1)-5/2000, 21.10.2000, 18.2.2005, 7.4.2008, 25.8.2012] - The court considered the dispute regarding the regularization of Technical Assistants (Takniki Sahayak) engaged in Gram Panchayats under various notifications issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The petitioners sought regularization of their services as per the existing policy of the State Government for contract employees. The respondents contended that the petitioners were employees of the concerned Panchayats and not of the State Government, and their services cannot be regularized. The court analyzed the notifications, the nature of the appointments, and the absence of a cadre post for Takniki Sahayak in the respondent department. It referred to a similar case where the services of a petitioner were regularized as a Junior Engineer and observed that the action of the State not to regularize the petitioners, who had put in more than twelve years of service, was arbitrary and violative of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The court directed the State Government to consider the cases of the petitioners in light of the decision already taken for Junior Engineers and Panchayat Sahayak, and to take a decision positively within a period of three months.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, Technical Assistants (Takniki Sahayak), sought regularization of their services as per the existing policy of the State Government for contract employees. They claimed that despite being engaged on a contract basis from the year 2001 onwards, their services were required to be regularized as per the existing policy of the State Government for contract employees i.e. after completion of six years of contract service. They also claimed that the department had not framed any Recruitment and Promotion Rules for filling up the post of Takniki Sahayak and the appointments were being made in accordance with executive instructions/notification issued from time to time. The respondents contended that the petitioners were employees of the concerned Panchayats and not of the State Government, and their services cannot be regularized.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the action of the State not to regularize the petitioners, who had put in more than twelve years of service, was arbitrary and violative of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It directed the State Government to consider the cases of the petitioners in light of the decision already taken for Junior Engineers and Panchayat Sahayak, and to take a decision positively within a period of three months.

Issues: The main issue was whether the services of the petitioners, Technical Assistants (Takniki Sahayak), engaged in Gram Panchayats, were required to be regularized as per the existing policy of the State Government for contract employees.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the action of the State not to regularize the petitioners, who had put in more than twelve years of service, was arbitrary and violative of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It directed the State Government to consider the cases of the petitioners in light of the decision already taken for Junior Engineers and Panchayat Sahayak, and to take a decision positively within a period of three months.

Final Decision: The court directed the State Government to consider the cases of the petitioners in light of the decision already taken for Junior Engineers and Panchayat Sahayak, and to take a decision positively within a period of three months.

JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J)

Since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration, therefore, this batch of writ petitions are taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by common judgment.

2. The Government of Hiamchal Pradesh, Department of Panchayati Raj issued Notification No.PCH-HC(1)-5/2000 dated 21.10.2000, whereby it issued guidelines for engaging Technical Staff in the Gram Panchayats for the execution of developmental works. As per this notification, the scheme envisaged was applicable for all over the State and was to provide employment opportunities to those unemployed persons who otherwise were qualified in various trades like Junior Engineers/Surveyors/ Draftsman etc.

3. The petitioners were eligible and participated in the selection process and ultimately were appointed as Technical Assistants (Takniki Sahayak) in the respondent department on contract basis. The petitioners initially at the time of appointment were paid fixed honorarium of Rs.1200/-per month and apart from this they were also being paid commission at the rate as prescribed by the respondents department from time to time. As per terms and conditions of this notification, the petitioners were required to work only for 4 hours a day.

4. On 18.2.2005, the respondents issued another notification superseding the notification dated 21.10.2000 and formulated a new scheme for engaging Technical Assistants in the Gram Panchayats. The eligibility of qualification was fixed as degree/diplomas in Civil Engineering from recognized institution. It was further provided that all the persons appointed under the scheme of 21.10.2000 shall also be eligible, if otherwise qualified. It was further provided that Technical Assistant ( Takniki Sahayak) was to be paid 2% of the cost of each work as service fee and the same would be paid in two installments i.e. one on the completion of 50% of the work and final installment at the completion of the work.

5. The State Government in supersession of Notification dated 18.5.2005, issued yet another Notification dated 7.4.2008, whereby once again new scheme was formulated for engaging Technical Assistant (Takniki Sahayak) for Gram Panchayats. Now as per this scheme, the Takniki Sahayak were required to ensure quality and cost effectiveness of civil works being carried out and executed by the Gram Panchayats under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and all other development works in the State of Himachal Pradesh. In this notification, the Takniki Sahayak were given powers to accord technical approval and assessment of work of Rs.1,50,000/-. The service fee for the works upto Rs.50,000/- was fixed at 2% and thereafter 1.5% upto Rs.1,50,000/-.

6. The State vide notification dated 25.8.2012 enhanced the minimum fixed monthly amount payment to the petitioners from Rs.4,000/- and Rs.5,000/- to Rs.5500/-. Besides this, the rate of the commission for works upto Rs.1,00,000/- was fixed at the rate of 2%, works upto Rs.2,00,000/-at the rate of 1.50% while the works of above Rs.2,00,000/- the commission was fixed at the rate of 1.25%.

7. In September, 2012, the respondent-State issued Notification whereby it was decided to pay Rs.240/- per day to the Technical Assistants who had completed 10 years of service. Another change brought in this notification was that the services of the petitioners from the status of “contract employee” was converted to that of “daily wager”.

8. Now, the claim of the petitioners is that despite having been engaged on contract basis from the year 2001 onwards, their services were required to be regularized as per existing policy of the State Government but instead of regularizing their services the same had been converted as aforesaid. The petitioners claim that no doubt as per notification dated 21.10.2000 they had to work only for four hours but thereafter this notification was superseded by notification dated 18.2.2005 and thereafter the petitioners are working on contrac








































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top