Shimla, Mar 2
The Himachal Pradesh High court allowing an mandamus petition against the state Government forest department to regularise a daily wager with effect from Jan1,2002 said that legitimate rights of petition are denied and delayed since last 14yrs. While granting relief, the also court slapped a fine of Rs 1 lakh on the respondent and directed it to be paid by Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, District Shimla and Divisional forest officer Karsog personally.
“ …the aforesaid costs should be personally paid by the PCCF Shimla for not , H.P, who passed the impugned order dated 17th December, 2015 i.e. Annexure A-5 and Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P, who passed the impugned order dated 4.9.2020 i.e. Annexure P-11.”
The single bench of justice Bipin Chander Negi stated this in a 10 paged order passed on Feb 28 copy of which was supplied today. While setting aside the lower court order of Sep 4, 2020 the HC granted the relief to the Petitioner Narsingh Dutt and directed the respondent state complete the task on or before April 30 2-24. Failing to settle the claim of the petitioner within the deadline, the court directed that in that case, the petitioner shall be entitled for 7.5 per cent per annum interest.
In the background of the matter the petitioner filed a mandamus petition for being denied the entitlement for work charge status or regularization with effect from 2002 with all consequential benefits including seniority, pay fixation and pensionary benefits etc.
Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that the petitioner had been engaged on 1.9.1994 on daily waged basis and had completed 240 days till 30.1.2008 in each calendar year. In the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner had initially preferred CWP No.6221 of 2010 titled Narsingh Dutt vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, the same was decided on 6th October, 2010. By way of the aforesaid petition, the petitioner had approached this Court claiming that his claim is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in CWP No.2735 of 2010 titled Rakesh Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 28th July, 2010. Vide judgment dated 6th October, 2010, in CWP No.6221 of 2010, the Court had directed the petitioner to make an appropriate representation to the respondent concerned/competent authority within a period of one month and thereafter, the concerned authority was directed to consider and decide the said representation within four months from 6th October, 2010. However, in pursuance to the aforesaid judgment passed in CWP No.6221 of 2010, the petitioner had made an appropriate representation in pursuance to the judgment dated 6th October, 2010. The aforesaid representation was decided by the respondent concerned on 17th December, 2015, whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected. The case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the Forest Department is not a work charged establishment.
However contrary to the claim of the respondent the High court noted, “From the aforesaid, it is clearly evident that the present petitioner, who is a Class-IV employee has been denied his legitimate right since 2010.” Adding,” On each occasion, the respondents/State has objected to the genuine claim of the petitioner by taking frivolous pleas, which are in the face of settled law,” it stated, while allowing the petition.
Empower Independent Journalism – Join Us Today!
Dear Reader,
We’re committed to unbiased, in-depth journalism that uncovers truth and gives voice to the unheard. To sustain our mission, we need your help. Your contribution, no matter the size, fuels our research, reporting, and impact.
Stand with us in preserving independent journalism’s integrity and transparency. Support free press, diverse perspectives, and informed democracy.
Click [here] to join and be part of this vital endeavour.
Thank you for valuing independent journalism.
Warmly,
Vishal Sarin, Editor
