State of Himachal Pradesh and others, respectively, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby writ petitions preferred by the writ petitioner(s)/ respondent No. 1 herein (in both the appeals) (for short ‘writ-petitioner(s)’), have been allowed directing the appellants-State to pay the arrears of wages due to them, wit hin a period of six weeks.

2. The appellants-Stateo have challenged the common judgment on the grounds that th ere was no privity of contract between the writ petitioner(s) andr the appellants-State. During July, 2006, the Government took a decision to handover some water supply schemes to the panchayats for its maintenance and the appellants-State had only provided the financial assistance to the gram panchayats on specified criteria. The Department had no direct link with the workers and the scheme was closed. So far as the reliance having been placed by the learned Single Judge on Annexure PD is concerned, this document has not been proved and thus the learned Single Judge has wrongly come to the conclusion that the writ petitioner(s) were discharging their duties with the appellants-State, who were lawfully engaged for regulating the water supply scheme nomenclatured as ‘WSS Taksal’.

3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel representing the writ petitioner(s) has supported the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that the appellants-State, despite receipt of the legal notice, did not bother to reply the same. From the documents placed on record, it is crystal clear that the writ petitioner(s) were engaged as per the memorandum of understanding, wherein it was clearly mentioned that the Gram Panchayat shall be responsible for operation of watero supply scheme. It was argued that the order passed by the learned Single Judge, directing the appellants- State to pay the amount wr.e.f. 22.06.2009 till the filing of the petition does not warrant any interference.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

5. As per the pleadings in the writ petition(s), the writ petitioner(s) were appointed as water distributors/water supply men by the appellants-State, through respondents No. 2 & 3, the Gram Panchayat Taksal who were respondents No. 3 and 4 in the writ petition. The appellants-State had asked respondents No.2 and 3 in the appeal to provide them the capable persons for discharging duties/functions of water distribution and the Gram Panchayat had passed the resolution also, appointing the writ petitioner(s) for distribution of water since 22.06.2009. The memorandum of understanding was also signed by respondent No.3 with the writ petitioner(s), which was sent to appellant No.2, as required by them. The writ petitioner(s) had also got issued the legal notice through their counsel to pay the arrears of wages w.e.f. 22.06.2009, however, no reply was given to the said notice. They had also raised the demand through demand application dated 29.04.20 10, which was addressed to the Labour Inspector, Parwanooo, requesting him to get the arrears of wages released in favour of w rit petitioner(s).

6. The learnedr Senior counsel representing the writ petitioner(s) also referred to Annexure PD i.e. the register maintained by the writ petitioner(s), which was countersigned by the official of the appellants-State and submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference. It is not in dispute that the petitioners/workmen have worked and discharged their duties, but the only plea which has been taken by the appellants-State is that the Government took a decision in July, 2006, to handover some water supply schemes agreed to by the Pradhan of the panchayats for its maintenance to their exclusive jurisdiction and the appellants-State would only provide financial assistance to the said Gram Panchayat on a specific criteria for which the concerned Assistant Engineer will first sign a memorandum of understanding with the said G