IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of an employee to conferment of work charge status after completion of service, irrespective of the establishment being a work charge establishment, and the obligation of the department to consider the case of daily waged workman for conferment of daily work charge status.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:­

“(i) That the impugned order dated 11.04.2019 (Annexure P­7) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of work charge status after completion of 8 years on daily wage basis as per the Rakesh Kumar judgment w.e.f. 01.01.2006 with all consequential benefits.”

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially engaged as a beldar by respondent No.4 during the year 1982­83. His services were illegally dispensed with by the respondent-Department in the year 1987. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner raised a demand under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This culminated into a reference being made by the Appropriate Government to learned Labour Court. The reference was answered by learned Labour Court in terms of award dated 26.02.2002 (Annexure P­1), wherein the petitioner alongwith other reference petitioners were held entitled to reinstatement with continuity and seniority from the date of receipt of the reference in the Court, i.e. 16.04.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated in service and his services were regularized as a beldar w.e.f. 26.11.2008.

3. The petitioner in the year 2010 filed CWP No.5702 of 2010, praying for conferment of work charge status post completion of eight years of service. This Writ Petition was disposed of on 22.09.2010 by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court with the direction that the matter be considered by the Department in light of the judgment of this court in CWP No.2735 of 2010, titled Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 28.07.2010 and connected matters. As nothing happened thereafter, the petitioner again filed an Original Application, i.e. O.A. No.6171 of 2016, titled as Sh. Ramiya vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, before learned Himachal Pradesh Administrate Tribunal. This Original Application was disposed of by learned Tribunal vide order dated 13.09.2018 (Annexure P­5), directing the Authorities concerned to decide the case of the petitioner in light of the judgment of the High Court in CWP No.2735 of 2010 (supra). Pursuant to these orders, vide Office Order dated 11.04.2019 (Annexure P­7), the case of the petitioner has been rejected by the Competent Authority by holding that the petitioner was granted seniority by learned Labour Court w.e.f. 16.04.1998 and therefore, the petitioner was not liable to be granted parity of Rakesh Kumar’s case in Class­IV category as the work charge status was abolished on 19.04.2005 and converted into regular establishment by the Government.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

5. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that non-conferment of work charge status after completion of eight years of service w.e.f. 16.04.1998 is arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law, learned Advocate General has submitted that in view of the law laid down by this Court in Rakesh Kumar’s case, the petitioner cannot be conferred work charge status.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Advocate General and have carefully gone through the pleadings and documents appended with the plaint.

7. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled for the relief of conferment of work charge status after completion of eight years of service on daily wage basis as counted from 16.04.1998, i.e. post completion of eight years of service as from 16.04.1998.

8. The issue as to whether the conferment of work charge status is dependent on the establishment being a work charge establishment stands settled. Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. vs. Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CWP No. 3111 of 2016, decided on 10.05.2018, while confirming an order passed by the erstwhile Tribunal, held as under:­

6. Having carefull