|
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a State government appeal challenging the grant of work-charge status to a Class-IV employee and imposed costs of 25,000 on the government for pursuing litigation in a matter already covered by an established judicial precedent.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) filed by the State against an earlier single-bench judgment in favour of Ram Gopal. The court directed that the costs be paid directly to the employee. Gopal was initially engaged as a daily-wage Class-IV worker in 1993 under the Integrated Watershed Development Project (IWDP), Kandi, and subsequently served under various State watershed projects. The single judge had directed the State to regularise his services and grant him work-charge status with effect from January 1, 2001, after he completed eight years of continuous service. However, the monetary benefits were restricted to a period of three years preceding the filing of his writ petition. During the proceedings, the State had itself admitted that Gopal's case was covered by the judgment in Sant Ram vs State of Himachal Pradesh. The High Court noted that despite the Supreme Court having repeatedly dismissed the State's appeals and review petitions in the Sant Ram matter, the government chose to challenge the relief granted to Gopal. The Division Bench strongly criticised the State for continuing to litigate matters that were already covered by judicial precedents, observing that such conduct resulted in unnecessary harassment of Class-IV employees. The court observed that costs were being imposed as the State continued to file appeals even in "covered matters", thereby wasting judicial time and putting low-paid employees through prolonged litigation. "A wake-up call is required in the right places in the Department concerned," the Bench observed. The court also rejected the State's contention regarding delay and laches, noting that the employee had been awaiting the final outcome of the governing precedent before approaching the court. The Bench further observed that the State had failed to follow its own litigation policy and dismissed the appeal, directing that the 25,000 costs be paid to Gopal. (ANI)
|
