STATE OF H.P. versus GEHAR SINGH

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 364 · Decided: 27-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF H.P. AND ORS. 
V. 
GEHARSINGH 
FEBRUARY 27, 2007 
B 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
C 
Regularisation-Daily wage workers in Irrigation and Public Works 
Department-Continuing in service for more than I 0 years-Tribunal directing 
their appointment as work charged employees w.ej J.J.94-But Government 
regularizing w.ef l.J.03-Held, notwithstanding the fact that services of 
works were regularized w.e.f 1. J.2003, they cannot be denied benefits directed 
to be given to them by the Tribunal as affirmed by High Court which had 
D already accrued to them under the Scheme approved in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's 
case. 
Respondents were employed on daily wage basis as Class Ill and Class 
IV employees in the Irrigation and Public Works Department of the State of 
· Himachal Pradesh. The State Government framed a scheme for Betterment 
E (Appointment) Regularisation of Muster Roll/Daily Wage Workers. The said 
scheme came to be considered before the Supreme Court in Moo! Raj 
Upadhyaya 's case. The Court modified the Scheme, inter alia, to the effect 
that Daily Wage/Muster Roll workers who had completed JO years or more 
of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 
p 
December, 31, 1993, would be appointed as work charged employees w.e.f. 
January I, 1994 and would be put in the respective time scale; and those who 
did not complete JO years of such continuous service till December 31, 1993 
wo•Jld be appointed as work charged employees w.e.f. the date they complete 
the said JO years service and on such appointed date they would be put in the 
respective time scales. Their services would be regularize!! in a phased manner 
G on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability including physical fitness. On 
6.5.2000 the State Government circulated a fresh policy to the effect that 
regularization of daily wage workers would be done with prospective effect 
on vacant posts or by creating fresh posts with prior approval of Finance 
Department. This was challenged in the State Administrative Tribunal, which 
H 
364 
-
STATEOFH.P. v. GEHAR SINGH 
365 
held that respondents would be granted work charged status w.e.f. January 1, A 
2000. However, the appellants regularized services of the respondents w.e.f. 
~anuary I, 2003, and filed a writ petition before the High Court contending 
that the policy dated 6.5.2000 barred retrospective regularization and, 
therefore, the order of the State Tribunal be quashed. The High Court, relying 
upon Moo/ Raj Upadhyaya 's case dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the B 
State Government filed the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
t-
HELD:l.1. The High Court did not commit any error in dismissing the 
writ petitions filed by the State Government. The Scheme as referred to in C 
the case of Moo/ Raj Upadhyaya envisages two stages in regularising the 
services of the Daily Wage/Muster Roll workers. In the first stage, after 
completion of 10 years or more continuous service with a minimum of 240 
days in a calendar year on 31st December, 1993, Daily Wage/Muster Roll 
workers were to be appointed as work-charged employees with effect from 
1st January, 1994. Thereafter, they were to be regularised in the second stage D 
in a phased manner on the basis of seniority cum suitability including physical 
fitness. (Para 17) (370-E-F) 
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors., decided by 
Supreme Court on 10th April, 2006, referred tO. 
1.2. Notwithstanding the fact that the services of the respondents have 
been regularised with effect from lst January, 2003 and they have joined their 
posts from that date without protest, they cannot, be denied the benefits as 
directed to be given to them by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court 
which had already accrued to them under the Scheme which was approved in 
Moo/ Raj Upadhyaya's case. (Para 19) )371-C) 
--r 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. I 037 of 2007. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated l 6. l 1.2005 of the High Court 
ofHimachal Pradesh at Shimla in C.W.P. No. 364 of2004. 
WITH 
Civil Appeals Nos. 1043, 1042, 1041, 1040, 1039 and 1038 of2007. 
E 
F 
G 
J.S. Attri, B.D. Sharma, Suryanaryana Singh, Pragati Neekhra Singh, 
D.K. Sinha, A.K. Gupta and M.C. Dhingra, Anil Nag for the appearing parties 
and Gehar Singh, Respondent-in-Person. 
H 
366 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
ALT AMAS KABIR, J

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.