Point of Law: Existence of work charge establishment is not a pre-condition for grant of work charge status.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

Instant petition has been filed for grant of following relief:-

“a. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Board to grant work charge status to the present petitioner w.e.f. 11.03.2000, when he has completed eight years of continuous service as daily wager with 240 days in each calendar year along with interest on the delayed arrears or salary and the benefits of revised pay salary till realization of the amount.”

2. Petitioner is an ex-serviceman. After his discharge from Indian Army, he had registered himself with ex-servicemen cell on 16.01.1990.

3. Petitioner was engaged as daily waged worker by respondent No.2 w.e.f. 11.03.1992. He worked in the same capacity till 18.12.2006 when he was offered temporary post of Peon, which the petitioner accepted and continued to work on such post till his superannuation in the year 2012.

4. Petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No. 4779 of 2019 with a prayer that his initial engagement with respondent No.2 in the year 1992 be declared as regular appointment and he be granted all consequential benefits. A coordinate bench of this Court vide judgment dated 21st September, 2021, rejected the prayer of the petitioner. However, it was observed that the work period of petitioner w.e.f. 1992 till 2006 could be considered for his eligibility for conferment of work charge status. Accordingly, liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file an appropriate representation and the respondents were directed to consider the same strictly in accordance with the law laid down by this Court vide judgments dated 31.07.2014 in case titled Mathu Ram v. Municipal Corporation and Ors, CWP No.2415 of 2012 and 28.07.2010, in case titled Rakesh Kumar vs. State of HP & Ors, CWP No.2735 of 2010. Further liberty was reserved in favour of petitioner to approach the appropriate Court of law, if he still remained aggrieved.

5. Petitioner preferred representation to respondent No.2, but remained unsuccessful. His representation has been rejected by respondent No.2 vide office order dated 18.04.2022, Annexure P-2 on the ground that respondent No.2 did not have work charge establishment at any point of time, therefore, the judgment passed by this Court in the cases of Rakesh Kumar and Mathu Ram (supra) would not be applicable.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

7. Petitioner has assailed order Annexure P-2 on the ground that the reasons for rejection of the case of the petitioner are untenable in law. It has been contended that this Court has already taken view that existence of work charge establishment is not a pre-condition for grant of work charge status.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order.

9. Noticeably, in ordinary circumstances the claim of the petitioner would have been held to be hopelessly barred by delay and laches. Petitioner got fresh cause of action on passing of judgment in CWP No. 4779 of 2019. The respondents accepted the verdict and proceeded to decide the representation of petitioner without even considering the factor of delay, if any, in the matter.

10. Respondents have abstained from filing any reply in the present petition despite various opportunities. In this background, the case of the petitioner is required to be considered on merits.

11. A Division Bench of this Court (in which I was one of the member) while deciding LPA No. 160 of 2021, State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Smt. Reema Devi, vide judgment dated 23.05.2022, had dealt with the issue of grant of work charge status to the employees of establishment which had ceased to be a work charge establishment or had not been such an establishment and has held as under:-

“9. After filing of O.A. No. 3109 of 2015, the Division Bench of this Court passed judgment in CWP No.3111 of 2016, titled State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Ashwani Kumar on 10.05.2018 and upheld the order passed by the H.P. State Administrative T