State Of H. P. vs Gehar Singh - 2007 Supreme(SC) 279

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2007 Supreme(SC) 279

2007(2) Supreme 713
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Himachal Pradesh High Court)
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & Altamas Kabir, JJ.
State of H.P. & Ors.—Appellants
versus
Gehar Singh—Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1037 of 2007
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5863/2006)
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 1043, 1042, 1041, 1040, 1039, 1038 of 2007
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 3538, 3540, 3580, 3647, 3818 and 5766/2006)
Decided on 27-2-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : J.S. Attri, B.D. Sharma, Suryanaryana Singh, Ms. Pragati Neekhra Singh, D.K. Sinha, A.K. Gupta and M.C. Dhingra, Anil Nag, Advocates and Gehar Singh, Respondent-In-Person.

Headnote:LABOUR LAW—Regularisation of daily wagers—Scheme of Betterment (Appointment) Regularisation of Muster Roll/Daily Wage Workers prepared by State Govt.—Appellants were employed on daily wages basis in Irrigation and Public Health Wings classified as Class III and Class IV employees—Some of them were working for more than 10 years—Scheme was modified by Supreme Court in a writ petition filed in Mool Raj Upadhyay case—Respondents filed applications before State Administrative Tribunal for direction to give work charged status to them w.e.f. 1-4-1998—Tribunal allowed applications on basis of judgment in Mool Raj Upadhyay case and directed appellants to grant work-charged status to respondents from 1-1-2000 with all consequential benefits—Appellants regularised services of appellant w.e.f. 1-1-2003 and filed writ in 2004 and High Court dismissed writ—Appeal—High Court did not commit any error as case made out by State Govt. before High Court was departure from decision given in Mool Raj Upadhyay case—Respondents held entitled to benefit as given by Tribunal.
       Held : On a careful consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we are of the view that the High Court did not commit any error in dismissing the writ petitions filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh. The Scheme as referred to in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya envisages two stages in regularising the services of the Daily Wage/Muster Roll workers. In the first stage, after completion of 10 years or more continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31st December, 1993, Daily Wage/Muster Roll workers were to be appointed as work-charged employees with effect from 1st January, 1994. Thereafter, they were to be regularised in the second stage in a phased manner on the basis of seniority cum suitability including physically fitness. Even while challenging the direction given by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 23rd October, 2003, the State of Himachal Pradesh made out a case that the respondents were claiming regularisation of their services with effect from 1st April, 1998. It was also urged that it had been brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the respondents were daily waged workers and as per the instructions dated 6th May, 2000, they were entitled for work charged status only as and when the posts were sanctioned by the State Government in a phased manner strictly on the basis of seniority. (Para 17)
       The aforesaid case made out by the State of Himachal Pradesh before the High Court was a clear departure from the directions given in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case. The respondents had only claimed the benefit of the Betterment Scheme which was placed before this Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case and had prayed for work charged status from 1st January, 2000, before the Tribunal whereas the change in policy was brought about on 6th May, 2000. It is on that basis that the Tribunal directed that the respondents be given work charged status with effect from 1st January, 2000.(Para 18)
       Notwithstanding the fact that the services of the respondents have been regularised with effect from 1st January, 2003 and they have joined their posts from that date without protest, they cannot, in our view, be denied the benefits as directed to be given to them by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court which had already accrued to them under the Scheme which was approved in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case.(Para 19)

JUDGMENT

Altamas Kabir, J.—Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.

2. As the appellants in all these appeals are similarly placed, all the appeals will stand disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The appellants are employed on a daily wage basis in the Irrigation and Public Health Wings of the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department. They are classified as Class III and Class IV employees who are being paid their daily wages in keeping with the minimum wages prescribed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time. A number of the appellants have been employed in the aforesaid manner for more than ten years.

4. A scheme for Betterment (Appointment) Regularisation of Muster Roll/Daily Wage Workers in Himachal Pradesh was prepared by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, the salient features whereof are reproduced hereinbelow:-

“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 as on 31.12.1991, will be treated as monthly rated employees, on a consolidated fixed pay without any allowances, and an annual increment, as para-1 Annexure-A. They shall be entitled to annual increment for those months, in which they work for a minimum of 15 working days, per calendar month. They shall continue to be monthly rated employees, till they are appointed as work-charged employees.

2.All those daily rated employees whether skilled or unskilled who had completed 10 years of continuous service with a minimum of 240 working days in a calendar year as on 31.12.1987, shall be appointed as work charged employees in a phased manner as soon as the stay orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh is vacated. On appointment as work-charged employees, they shall be put in the time-scale of pay applicable to the corresponding lowest grade in the Government.

3.The daily rated workers, who would have completed 20 years of service as on 31.12.1992 shall be regularised w.e.f. 1.4.1993 on the basis of seniority cum suitability including physical fitness. On regularisation, they shall be put in the minimum of the time scale of pay applicable to the lowest corresponding post concerned under the Govt. and would be entitled to all other benefits available to regular Govt. servants of the corresponding grade.

4.In the event of any anomaly between the wages prescribed for the Monthly Rated Employees and that prescribed by the Govt. from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the Monthly Rated Employees are entitled to wages, which are higher, at any point of time, in future.”

5. The aforesaid Scheme fell for the consideration of this Court in the Writ Petition filed by Shri Mool Raj Upadhyaya which was heard along with several other writ petitions where the relief prayed for was similar. In all the said writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the employees had claimed regularisation of their services as well as for payment of salary, allowances and other benefits as were being given to the regular employees on the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. While considering the said betterment scheme, this Court modified the same by substituting the aforesaid paragraphs numbers 1 to 4 with 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 December 31, 1993, shall be appointed as work-charged employees with effect from January 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 December 31, 1993, shall be appointed as work-charged employees with effect from the date they complete the said period of 10 years of service a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document