The State of Himachal Pradesh Revenue Secretary vs Pinju Ram

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 898-900 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 37383-37385 of 2012)

THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

PINJU RAM ETC. Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud

Leave granted.

On 27 February 2004, the Chief Secretary to the

Government of Himachal Pradesh addressed a communication inter

alia to all Deputy Commissioners and Heads of Departments among

others, stating that the regularisation of part time employees

was engaging the attention of the State for some time in the

past. The Government decided that part time class-IV employees

who completed ten years of continuous service as on 31 December

2003 in all departments, except Education and Ayurveda, will be

made daily wagers subject to certain terms and conditions.

Para 1 and 3 of the letter contained the following conditions: Signature Not Verified

“1. Part-time Class-IV employees who have Digitally signed by MANISH SETHI Date: 2019.01.29 completed ten years of continuous service 15:42:48 IST Reason: as on 31.12.2003 will be made daily wager.

Posts vacated by such part-time employees shall stand abolished.

***** ***** ***** ***** 2

3. The conversion to daily wager status will be with prospective effect.”

Some part time employees had moved the Himachal Pradesh

Administrative Tribunal seeking regularisation of their

services and other benefits.

The Tribunal by its order dated 27 June 2006 observed

that the State Government had framed a policy for providing

daily wage employment to part time employees completing ten

years of service. Hence, the State Government was directed to

provide daily wage employment to those applicants before it who

had completed ten years of service.

The State Government filed a writ petition before the

High Court which was dismissed, following which a special leave

petition was dismissed by this Court on 21 November 2007.

Another writ petition1 was filed by a part time employee,

Moti Singh seeking conversion to the status of a daily wage

worker with effect from the date of completion of ten years of

service on a part time basis. On 21 April 2011, a Division

Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh disposed of the writ

petition with a direction to the State Government to consider

the representation filed by the employee. The High Court held

thus:

“2...We make it clear that in case the petitioner is granted daily waged status retrospectively, he shall not be entitled to

1 CWP No. 2192/2011 3

any consequential monetary benefit in that regard. The period will be counted only for the purpose of his claim for regularisation after having worked as a daily wager for 10 years in that manner.”

Pursuant to the above directions of the High Court, the

State Government in the Department of Revenue issued

instructions on 22 September 2011. The instructions, inter

alia, govern Revenue Chowkidars and provided as follows:

“1. That the amount of wages to daily waged Revenue Chowkidars shall be paid from the date they have actually been appointed and working as full time daily wager in the department.

2. Since the Revenue Chowkidars have worked as part-time prior to their conversion into daily wagers, therefore, they are not entitled to any financial benefit like arrear etc. Attention is also invited to Hon’ble High Court judgment 21.04.2011 passed in a CWP No. 2192 of 2011 titled Moti Singh vs. State and Ors. Where direction has been issued that “in case the petitioner is granted daily waged status retrospectively, he shall not be entitled to any consequential monetary benefit.

3. Seniority to these daily waged Revenue Chowkidars may be granted from the date of completion of 10 years as Part Time workers.”

The first respondent filed a writ petition before the

High Court seeking a grant of daily wage status with

consequential benefits with effect from 27 February 20042.

On 7 July 2012, the State Government issued further

instructions for the conferment of daily wage status on the

2 (CWP 2494/2012) 4

remaining part time employees though without financial benefits

in the interregnum including the arrears of pay. By its

judgment dated 20 July 2012 which is impugned in these

proceedings, the High Court issued a direction to the State

Government to the effect that all part time Revenue Chowkidars

who have been conferred daily wage status in terms of the

policy dated 27 February 2004 should be granted monetary

benefits with effect from 1 January 2007.

The High Court directed that having been conferred with

daily wage status, they shall be treated at par with all daily

wagers in terms of the policy prevailing on the completion of

eight years. Consequential benefits were directed to be

disbursed within three months failing which interest at the

rate of nine per cent will ensue. When the special leave

petition came up for hearing on 2 January 2013, a statement was

made before this Court on behalf of the Government of Himachal

Pradesh that the appellant would confine the challenge only to

the question of back wages to persons who are converted to

daily wage status. While issuing notice, this Court stayed the

grant of consequential benefits.

The submission which has been urged on behalf of the

State in support of the appeals is that the original policy

dated 27 February 2004 governed part time employees of the

State Government, who upon the completion of ten years of

service as on 31 December 2003, were to be made daily wagers. 5

The Revenue Chowkidars who are not appointed by the State were

not governed by the above policy. The Revenue Chowkidars are

essentially engaged by the Panchayats. Hence, it was urged

that in pursuance of the judgment of the High Court dated 21

April 2011, a conscious decision was taken on 22 September 2011

by the State Government in the Department of Revenue by which

Revenue Chowkidars were to be granted seniority from the

completion of ten years as part time workers but their wages as

daily wagers would be from the date on which they were actually

appointed and were working as daily wagers in the department.

Similarly, on 7 July 2012, the State Government reiterated its

position by directing that part time revenue chowkidars who had

completed 10 years of service until 31 March 2012 will be made

daily wagers from the date when they have completed ten years

of service, their seniority being reckoned from the date of

completion of ten years without any financial benefits of the

past period. Hence, it was urged that the High Court was in

error in issuing a direction for the payment of consequential

benefits with effect from 1 January 2007.

On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the

respondent employees that the High Court was justified in

issuing the impugned directions, since upon the completion of

ten years, the actual date on which the employees were actually

placed on daily wage status, was a matter of administrative

formality for which no fault can be found with the employees. 6

Moreover, it was urged that for all intents and purposes,

the part time employees were doing the same work as those who

are daily wage workmen and consequently such a direction,

which the High Court issued, was sustainable in law.

The initial policy of the State Government dated 27

February 2004 applied to part time class-IV employees in all

departments of the State Government except for Education and

Ayurveda. The Policy envisaged that upon the completion of

ten years of continuous service as on 31 December 2003, these

part time class-IV employees would be conferred daily wage

status with prospective effect.

In Moti Singh (supra), the High Court specifically held,

while directing the consideration of a representation that

upon the conferment of daily wage status, the employee would

not be entitled to any consequential monetary benefits for the

past period, but this would be counted for the purpose of

regularization after completion of ten years.

The policy dated 22 September 2011 essentially adopted

the principle adopted in Moti Singh (supra) by the High Court.

The communication dated 22 September 2011 of the State

Government in the Department of Revenue specifically spoke of

the conversion of part time revenue chowkidars to daily wage

status. Such a policy statement was required since evidently

they were not specifically covered by the policy decision of

27 February 2004.

7

The decision which communicated on 22 September 2011

essentially granted seniority to the revenue chowkidars who

were being placed on a daily wage basis. However, the payment

of wages would be with effect from the date of the actual

appointment and not earlier.

In the meantime, there was also a decision by a Division

Bench of the High Court in State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.

vs. Meher Singh and Others3 on 12 April 2007 which adverted to

the decision which was taken on 27 April 2004 by the State

Government.

Having regard to this background, we are of the view,

that once the State Government decided to bring part time

revenue chowkidars on a daily wage basis with the added

stipulation that while their seniority would count from the

completion of ten years, this would be without any past

financial benefits, this principle was required to be duly

followed.

In the circumstances, the High Court ought not to have

issued a direction for the payment of consequential monetary

benefits with effect from 1 January 2007.

Such a direction in fact was inconsistent with the

observations of the High Court itself in Moti Singh (supra)

which was decided on 21 April 2011.

3 C.W.P. No. 281 of 2007 8

The direction contained in the impugned order for the

payment of monetary benefits with effect from 1 January 2007

shall stand set aside. We clarify that the State Government

shall abide by the stipulations which are contained in the

communication dated 22 September 2011 (Annexure P-5) issued by

the Principal Secretary, Revenue in the Department of Revenue

which have been noted in the earlier part of this judgment.

We, however, clarify that the seniority of the part time

chowkidars who are granted daily wage status will be counted

from the date of completion of ten years as part time

chowkidars though without any financial benefits for the past.

For the above reasons, we are of the view that the

present appeals should be allowed. They are accordingly

allowed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

...…...….......………………........J. (DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD)

…...…........……………….…........J. (HEMANT GUPTA) NEW DELHI, January 22, 2019 9

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.901 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.3738 of 2016)

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. APPELLANT(s)

VERSUS GANESH DUTT & ANR. RESPONDENT(s)

O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

The High Court, by its impugned order dated 13

October 2014, has disposed of the Writ Petition [CWP 7040

of 2014] filed by the respondents in terms of its earlier

decision in Roshan Lal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh4

decided on 4 August 2014 and directed consideration of

the case of the respondents in accordance with the above

judgment.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of

Himachal Pradesh has submitted that Roshan Lal’s case was

considered by the High Court after affidavits were filed.

Placing reliance on paragraph 13 of the judgment, learned

counsel submitted that an affidavit was filed by the

tehsildar admitting the engagement of those petitioners

as chowkidars. In the present case, it has been urged

that the petition was simply disposed of without calling

for a counter affidavit from the State.

4 CWP 3496 of 2009 10

The attention of the Court has been drawn to the

grounds contained in the special leave petition where it

has been specifically submitted that the respondents were

not appointed and, as a matter of fact, though they

claimed to have been engaged since 1996, the Writ

Petition was filed in the High Court only in 2014.

Since the High Court has not dealt with the

individual facts pertaining to the case of the

respondents, we consider it appropriate and proper to

allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and

order of the High Court dated 13 October 2014.

Accordingly, we restore the Writ Petition (CWP 7040 of

2014] to the file of the High Court for disposal afresh.

The State shall file its counter affidavit before the

High Court within a period of four weeks from today so as

to enable the High Court to take a considered view in the

matter. All the rights and contentions of the parties

are kept open. We request the High Court to dispose of

the Writ Petition at an early date.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

.............................J. (DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD)

.............................J. (HEMANT GUPTA)

NEW DELHI JANUARY 22, 2019 11

ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.12 SECTION XIV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 37383- 37385/2012

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-07-2012 in CWP No. 2494/2012 20-07-2012 in CWP No. 4301/2012 20-07-2012 in CWP No. 5113/2012 passed by the High Court Of Himachal Pradesh At Shimla)

THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

PINJU RAM ETC. Respondent(s)

WITH SLP(C) No. 3738/2016 (XIV)

Date : 22-01-2019 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AAG Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Siddharth Garg, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. M.T. George, Adv.

Mr. Subhash Chandran K.R., Adv.

Ms. M.G. Yoganaya, Adv.

Mr. Biju P Raman, AOR

Mr. Anip Sachthey, AOR Mr. Saakar Sardana, Adv.

Mr. Aditya Dhawan, Adv.

Ms. Kiran Dhawan, Adv.

Ms. Ria Sachthey, Adv.

Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 898-900 OF 2019 @ SLP(C) Nos. 37383-37385 of 2012

Leave granted.

The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed reportable 12

judgment.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

CIVIL APPEAL NO.901 OF 2019 @ SLP (C) No.3738 of 2016

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(MANISH SETHI) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER

(One signed reportable judgment and one signed order are placed on the file)