Bakshi Ram v. State of H.P. through Secretary (Forests) to the Govt
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
hereinabove, the present petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Bakshi Ram son of Shri Mahant Ram, Forest worker, Range Office, Aghar, Distt. Hamirpur, HP.
Kulwant son of Shri Krishan Dass, Forest worker, Range Office, Aghar, Distt. Hamirpur, H.P.
Vikram son of Shri Prabhu Ram, Forest worker, Range Office, Hamirpur, Distt. Hamirpur, H.P.
Roop Chand son of Shri Gissu Ram, Forest worker, Range Office, Hamirpur, Distt. Hamirpur, HP.
Shakti Chand son of Shri Sohan Lal, forest worker, Range Office Hamirpur, Distt. Hamirpur, H.P.
Bheem Bahadur son of Shri Hasth Bahadur, Forest worker, Forest Rest House, Hamirpur, Distt. Hamirpur, HP.
Desh Raj son of Shri Birbal, Forest Worker, office of D.F.O. Hamirpur, Distt. Hamirpur, H.P. Versus 1. State of H.P. through Secretary (Forests) to the Govt. of .......Petitioners H.P.
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, H.P. Shimla-171
Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Hamirpur, Distt. Hamirpur, H.P. .......Respondents Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ________________________________________________________ 2 Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajender Dogra, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents. ____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral): Case of the petitioners, namely, Bansi Lal, Surender Kumar, Bakshi Ram, Kulwant Singh, Vikramjeet, Roop Chand, Bhim Bahadur and Desh Raj, in a nut-shell, is that they had been engaged on daily waged basis before 31.12.1993 and worked continuously for a period of 10 years and completed 240 days in each calendar year. However, they have not been conferred work charged status as per Mool Raj Upadhyay(cid:146)s case.
2. The respondent-State has filed reply. It is evident from para-2 of the reply that all the petitioners except Hari Chand and Shakti Chand had been engaged before 31.12.1993 and worked continuously for a period of 10 years and had completed 240 days in each calendar year. However, they have been regularized in the years 1998, 2003, 2006 and 2007, respectively. Since the ab ove said petitioners had been engaged before 31.12.1993 and completed 240 days in each calendar year, their case was required to be considered for conferment of work charged status as per Mool Raj Upadhyay(cid:146)s case.
3. Consequently, respondent-State is directed to confer work charged status on the above said petitioners, strictly as per dicta of their Lordships of the Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P. and others, 1994 2 3 Supp. (2) SCC 316 and State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Gehar Singh, (2007) 12 SCC 43. As far as petitioners Hari Chand and Shakti Chand are concerned, their case shall be considered as per judgment rendered by this Court in Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 2735 of 2010, decided on 28.7.2010. However, it is made clear that the same will abide by the outcome of the SLP preferred against the judgment cited hereinabove (Rakesh Kumar(cid:146)s case). The needful shall be done within a period of 10 weeks after the production of certified copy of this judgment.
Operative part
4. In view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, the present petition stands disposed of. No costs. March 29, 2012 ( Kalpana) (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 3
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: hereinabove, the present petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 29 Mar 2012. The bench was RAJIV SHARMA.
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.