Chunu Ram v. State of H.P & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 11 May 2009
Outcome
Disposed of
With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of
Judgment
The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Add. A. G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- a) that the services of the applicant be ordered to be regularized from the date of his completion of 240/180 days of service on his respective post of Road Supervisor/Road Inspector in regular pay scale of the post with arrear of pay allowances and consequential benefits. b) That the respondents be ordered to treat the period of service of the applicant during the period of 1986 and 1987 when he was performing the duties of Road Supervisor as Road Supervisor and to grant the relief to the applicant in terms of the judgment of Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court of India in case Mool Raj Upadhaya vs.
State of H.P. and Ors. 1994 (2) S.L.R. 377.(cid:148) 2 It is the petitioner(cid:146)s case that he was engaged as Road Supervisor but, however, except for a brief period, Must roll of Mate and/or Beldar was issued to him. He continued to discharge his duties as a Road Supervisor w.e.f. 1.1.1984 upto 31.12.1994. It is his grievance that persons junior to him were regularized as Road Supervisor but his claim was wrongfully ignored. The respondents in their reply have categorically denied that the petitioner was appointed as Road Supervisor. The respondents have annexed the seniority list (Annexure RA-IV) from which it is evident that the petitioner has worked as Road Supervisor, Mate, Beldar, Mate, Mate, Road Supervisor for different periods during the year 1986-88. The petitioner has accepted the regularization of his service as Mate, hence the regularization as Road Supervisor would not arise. The Division Bench of this Court in Gauri Dutt vs.
State of H.P. Latest HLJ 2008 HP 366 has held that employee cannot be given the benefit of combining service rendered in different scales and granted work charge status in the higher scale. However, if the employee has put in more than 10 years of continuous service combined in two scales an option be given to him to either accept work charge status in the lower scale or continues to work on daily wage basis in the higher scale and claim work charge status in the higher scale on completion of 10 years of continuous service in the said scale. The Apex Court in State of H.P. & Ors. v. Gehar Singh (2007) 12 SCC 43 (para 19) has held as under:- (cid:147)Notwithstanding the fact that the services of the respondents have been regularized with effect 3
Operative part
1.1.2003 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 case. (cid:148) Hence, in the facts and circumstances, it is directed that the services of the petitioner be regularized/work charge status be granted in accordance with law as Road Supervisor with effect from the date he completes 10 years of service in the said grade. Since the petitioner has continued to work in the said grade, he must have received the monetary benefits. However, ultimately if it is found that the petitioner is entitled for any arrear, the same shall be disbursed to him within a period of three months from today. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of. Judge. ( Sanjay Karol ), May 11, 2009 (rana)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of
Which court decided this case, and when?
Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 11 May 2009.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.