The respondents are also directed, to, in accordance with expostulations enshrined in a catena of verdicts rendered by the courts of law, to regularize their services against the substantive posts along with all incidental thereto benefits. This honorable judgement was passed by High Court of Himachal Pradesh Shimla in the case of Daulat Ram & Ors. Versus State of H.P. & others [CWPOA No. 6624 of 2019] by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
The writ petitioners filled by the claimant to claim for conferment of work charge status, upon, them, on completion of eight years of daily wage service under the respondents, hence becomes denied, by the respondents rather strikingly, upon, the singular ground of no work charge establishment being available with the respondents. Even if, the afore resistance to the writ claim, was echoed in the reply on affidavit, furnished to the writ petition by the respondents. However, the afore resistance per se appears to be a gross mis-endeavour, on the part of the respondents authority, rather to deprive the writ petitioners, from, being granted the writ claim. The afore inference is strengthened from the reflections occurring in Annexure P-1/A, wherein a daily wage worker, under the respondents, in as much as, rather came to be hence conferred with a work charge status. The drawing of Annexure P1/A does efficaciously blunt the effect, if any, of the reply on affidavit furnished to the writ petition by the respondents, with a display therein, that through Annexure R-2, prepared, hence, prior to the making of Annexure P-1/A, a decision has been taken to disband the work charge establishment.
The court was of the opinion that, “Obviously, hence Annexure R-2, is a fictitiously drawn document, merely for wreaking injustice upon the daily wage workers concerned, and, also to deprive them from the benefit of conferment of work charge status upon them, in pursuance to the verdicts rendered by courts of law. For the foregoing reasons, there is merit in the extant petition, and, it is allowed.”
The court allowed the writ petition in this case stating that, “Consequently, the respondents are directed to forthwith, in accordance with the policies of the government, confer work charge status, upon, the writ petitioners, along with all consequential benefits. If they have completed the requisite qualifying service, hence the respondents are also directed, to, in accordance with expostulations enshrined in a catena of verdicts rendered by the courts of law, to regularize their services against the substantive posts along with all incidental thereto benefits. All pending applications also stand disposed of.”
