Supreme Court of India
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR. versus PINJU RAM ETC. on 22 January 2019
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 601
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR.
v.
PINJU RAM ETC.(Civil Appeal Nos. 898-900 of 2019)JANUARY 22, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Service Law – Regularization of part time employees withconsequential benefits – The High Court in Moti Singh casespecifically held, while directing the consideration of daily wagestatus, the employee would not be entitled to any consequentialmonetary benefits for the past period, but this would be countedfor purpose of regularization after completion of ten years –Pursuant thereto, State Government issued instructions on22.09.2011, inter alia, governing Revenue Chowkidars – However,first respondent filed writ petition and sought grant of daily wagestatus with consequential benefits, which was granted by the HighCourt – On appeal, held: Direction of the High Court wasinconsistent with the observations of the High Court itself in MotiSingh case – The policy dated 22.09.2011 essentially adopted theprinciple adopted in Moti Singh case by the High Court – Thecommunication dated 22.09.2011 of the State Government in the Department of Revenue specifically spoke of the conversion of parttime revenue chowkidars to daily wage status – Thus, once the StateGovernment decided to bring part time Revenue Chowkidars on adaily wage basis with the added stipulation that while their senioritywould count from the completion of ten years, this would be withoutany past financial benefits, this principle was required to be dulyfollowed – In the circumstances, the High Court ought not to haveissued a direction for the payment of consequential monetarybenefits.
The Government decided by policy dated 27.02.2004 thatpart time class-IV employees who completed ten years ofcontinuous service as on 31.12.2003 in all departments, exceptEducation and Ayurveda, will be made daily wagers subject tocertain terms and conditions. In Moti Singh case, the High Courtheld that the employee would not be entitled to any consequentialmonetary benefits for past period, but this would be counted forthe purpose of regularization after completion of ten years.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
APursuant to the above directions of the High Court, the StateGovernment in the Department of Revenue issued instructionson 22.09.2011. The first respondent filed a writ petition beforethe High Court seeking a grant of daily wage status withconsequential benefits with effect from 27.02.2004. High Courtissued a direction for payment of consequential monetary benefitsBwith effect from 01.01.2007. Hence, the present Special LeavePetition.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. In Moti Singh case, the High Court specificallyheld, while directing the consideration of a representation thatCupon the conferment of daily wage status, the employee wouldnot be entitled to any consequential monetary benefits for thepast period, but this would be counted for the purpose ofregularization after completion of ten years. [Para 15]
2. The policy dated 22 September 2011 essentially adoptedDthe principle adopted in Moti Singh case by the High Court. Thecommunication dated 22 September 2011 of the State Governmentin the Department of Revenue specifically spoke of theconversion of part time revenue chowkidars to daily wagestatus. Such a policy statement was required since evidently theywere not specifically covered by the policy decision of 27 FebruaryE2004. [Para 16][606-G-H]
3. The decision which communicated on 22 September 2011essentially granted seniority to the revenue chowkidars who werebeing placed on a daily wage basis. However, the payment ofwages would be with effect from the date of the actual appointmentFand not earlier. [Para 17][607-A]
4. Once the State Government decided to bring part timerevenue chowkidars on a daily wage basis with the addedstipulation that while their seniority would count from thecompletion of ten years, this would be without any past financialbenefits, this principle was required to be duly followed. In theGcircumstances, the High Court ought not to have issued adirection for the payment of consequential monetary benefits witheffect from 1 January 2007. Such a direction in fact wasinconsistent with the observations of the High Court itself in MotiSingh case which was decided on 21 April 2011. Thus, the directionof the High Court shall stand set aside. [Paras 19, 20, 21 and 22]H[607-C, D, E]
Moti Singh v. State and Ors. (Judgment dated21.04.2011 passed in CWP No.2192/2011 by the HighCourt of Himachal Pradesh); State of Himachal Pradesh& Anr. v. Meher Singh and Others (Judgment dated12.04.2007 passed in CWP No.281/2007 by the HighCourt of Himachal Pradesh) – referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 898-900 of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.07.2017 of the High Courtof Himachal Pradesh. Shimla in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2494, 4301 and5113 of 2012
Abhinav Mukerji, AAG, Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Siddharth Garg,M.T. George, Subhash Chandran K.R., Ms. M.G. Yoganaya,Biju P Raman, Anip Sachthey, Saakar Sardana, Aditya Dhawan,Ms. Kiran Dhawan, Ms. Ria Sachthey, Yash Pal Dhingra, Advs. withhim for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Leave granted.
2. On 27 February 2004, the Chief Secretary to the Governmentof Himachal Pradesh addressed a communication inter alia to all DeputyCommissioners and Heads of Departments among others, stating thatthe regularisation of part time employees was engaging the attention ofthe State for some time in the past. The Government decided that parttime class-IV employees who completed ten years of continuous serviceas on 31 December 2003 in all departments, except Education andAyurveda, will be made daily wagers subject to certain terms andconditions. Para 1 and 3 of the letter contained the following conditions:
“1. Part-time Class-IV employees who have completed ten yearsof continuous service as on 31.12.2003 will be made daily wager.Posts vacated by such part-time employees shall stand abolished.***** ***** ***** *****
3. The conversion to daily wager status will be with prospectiveeffect.”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
A3. Some part time employees had moved the Himachal PradeshAdministrative Tribunal seeking regularisation of their services and otherbenefits.
4. The Tribunal by its order dated 27 June 2006 observed that theState Government had framed a policy for providing daily wageBemployment to part time employees completing ten years of service.Hence, the State Government was directed to provide daily wageemployment to those applicants before it who had completed ten yearsof service.
5. The State Government filed a writ petition before the HighCourt which was dismissed, following which a special leave petitionCwas dismissed by this Court on 21 November 2007.
6. Another writ petition[1] was filed by a part time employee, MotiSingh seeking conversion to the status of a daily wage worker witheffect from the date of completion of ten years of service on a part timebasis. On 21 April 2011, a Division Bench of the High Court of HimachalDPradesh disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the StateGovernment to consider the representation filed by the employee. TheHigh Court held thus:
“2...We make it clear that in case the petitioner is granted dailywaged status retrospectively, he shall not be entitled to anyEconsequential monetary benefit in that regard. The period will becounted only for the purpose of his claim for regularisation afterhaving worked as a daily wager for 10 years in that manner.”
7. Pursuant to the above directions of the High Court, the StateGovernment in the Department of Revenue issued instructions on 22September 2011. The instructions, inter alia, govern Revenue ChowkidarsFand provided as follows:
“1. That the amount of wages to daily waged Revenue Chowkidarsshall be paid from the date they have actually been appointed andworking as full time daily wager in the department.
2. Since the Revenue Chowkidars have worked as part-time priorGto their conversion into daily wagers, therefore, they are not entitledto any financial benefit like arrear etc. Attention is also invited toHon’ble High Court judgment 21.04.2011 passed in a CWP No.2192 of 2011 titled Moti Singh vs. State and Ors. Where directionhas been issued that “in case the petitioner is granted daily waged H1 CWP No. 2192/2011
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR. v. PINJU RAMETC. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
status retrospectively, he shall not be entitled to any consequentialmonetary benefit.
3. Seniority to these daily waged Revenue Chowkidars may begranted from the date of completion of 10 years as Part Timeworkers.”
8. The first respondent filed a writ petition before the High Courtseeking a grant of daily wage status with consequential benefits witheffect from 27 February 2004[2].
9. On 7 July 2012, the State Government issued further instructionsfor the conferment of daily wage status on the remaining part timeemployees though without financial benefits in the interregnum includingthe arrears of pay. By its judgment dated 20 July 2012 which is impugnedin these proceedings, the High Court issued a direction to the StateGovernment to the effect that all part time Revenue Chowkidars whohave been conferred daily wage status in terms of the policy dated 27February 2004 should be granted monetary benefits with effect from 1January 2007.
10. The High Court directed that having been conferred with dailywage status, they shall be treated at par with all daily wagers in terms ofthe policy prevailing on the completion of eight years. Consequentialbenefits were directed to be disbursed within three months failing whichinterest at the rate of nine per cent will ensue. When the special leavepetition came up for hearing on 2 January 2013, a statement was madebefore this Court on behalf of the Government of Himachal Pradeshthat the appellant would confine the challenge only to the question ofback wages to persons who are converted to daily wage status. Whileissuing notice, this Court stayed the grant of consequential benefits.
11. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the Statein support of the appeals is that the original policy dated 27 February2004 governed part time employees of the State Government, who uponthe completion of ten years of service as on 31 December 2003, were tobe made daily wagers. The Revenue Chowkidars who are not appointedby the State were not governed by the above policy. The RevenueChowkidars are essentially engaged by the Panchayats. Hence, it wasurged that in pursuance of the judgment of the High Court dated 21 April2011, a conscious decision was taken on 22 September 2011 by theState Government in the Department of Revenue by which Revenue 2 (CWP 2494/2012)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2 (CWP 2494/2012)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
AChowkidars were to be granted seniority from the completion of tenyears as part time workers but their wages as daily wagers would befrom the date on which they were actually appointed and were workingas daily wagers in the department. Similarly, on 7 July 2012, the StateGovernment reiterated its position by directing that part time revenuechowkidars who had completed 10 years of service until 31 March 2012Bwill be made daily wagers from the date when they have completed tenyears of service, their seniority being reckoned from the date of completionof ten years without any financial benefits of the past period. Hence, itwas urged that the High Court was in error in issuing a direction for thepayment of consequential benefits with effect from 1 January 2007.
C
12. On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the respondentemployees that the High Court was justified in issuing the impugneddirections, since upon the completion of ten years, the actual date onwhich the employees were actually placed on daily wage status, was amatter of administrative formality for which no fault can be found with Dthe employees.
13. Moreover, it was urged that for all intents and purposes, thepart time employees were doing the same work as those who are dailywage workmen and consequently such a direction, which the High Courtissued, was sustainable in law.
E14. The initial policy of the State Government dated 27 February2004 applied to part time class-IV employees in all departments of theState Government except for Education and Ayurveda. The Policyenvisaged that upon the completion of ten years of continuous serviceas on 31 December 2003, these part time class-IV employees would beconferred daily wage status with prospective effect.F
E
15. In Moti Singh(supra), the High Court specifically held, whiledirecting the consideration of a representation that upon the confermentof daily wage status, the employee would not be entitled to anyconsequential monetary benefits for the past period, but this would becounted for the purpose of regularization after completion of ten years.G16. The policy dated 22 September 2011 essentially adopted the G16. The policy dated 22 September 2011 essentially adopted theprinciple adopted in Moti Singh(supra) by the High Court. Thecommunication dated 22 September 2011 of the State Government inthe Department of Revenue specifically spoke of the conversion of parttime revenue chowkidars to daily wage status. Such a policy statementwas required since evidently they were not specifically covered by theHpolicy decision of 27 February 2004.
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR. v. PINJU RAMETC. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
17. The decision which communicated on 22 September 2011essentially granted seniority to the revenue chowkidars who were beingplaced on a daily wage basis. However, the payment of wages wouldbe with effect from the date of the actual appointment and not earlier.
18. In the meantime, there was also a decision by a Division Benchof the High Court in State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. vs. Meher Singhand Others[3] on 12 April 2007 which adverted to the decision which wastaken on 27 April 2004 by the State Government.
19. Having regard to this background, we are of the view, thatonce the State Government decided to bring part time revenue chowkidarson a daily wage basis with the added stipulation that while their senioritywould count from the completion of ten years, this would be without anypast financial benefits, this principle was required to be duly followed.
20. In the circumstances, the High Court ought not to have issueda direction for the payment of consequential monetary benefits witheffect from 1 January 2007.
21. Such a direction in fact was inconsistent with the observationsof the High Court itself in Moti Singh (supra) which was decided on 21April 2011.
22. The direction contained in the impugned order for the paymentof monetary benefits with effect from 1 January 2007 shall stand setaside. We clarify that the State Government shall abide by the stipulationswhich are contained in the communication dated 22 September 2011(Annexure P-5) issued by the Principal Secretary, Revenue in theDepartment of Revenue which have been noted in the earlier part ofthis judgment.
23. We, however, clarify that the seniority of the part timechowkidars who are granted daily wage status will be counted from thedate of completion of ten years as part time chowkidars though withoutany financial benefits for the past.
24. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the presentappeals should be allowed. They are accordingly allowed.
25. There shall be no order as to costs.
26. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Ankit Gyan
Appeals allowed.
3 C.W.P. No. 281 of 2007
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H