The Honble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. The Honble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Abheyandra Gupta, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, ACJ Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these petitions, they are being taken up for disposal together. For the purpose of decision, facts of only CWP No.2398 of 2016, titled as HPSEB Ltd. and another v. Nanak Chand and others, are being noticed.
2. Petitioners lay challenge to order dated 24.9.2015, passed by the learned State Administrative Tribunal in OA No.1304 of 2015, titled as Nanak Chand & others v. HPSEB Ltd. & another, whereby relying upon the decision rendered by the Honble Supreme Court of India in rt o Mool Raj Upadhayaya vs. State of H.P. & others, 1994 Supp(2) SCC 316, as also this Court in CWP No.778 of 2006, titled as Gauri Dutt v. State of H.P, decided on 29.12.2007, petitioners herein have been directed to consider the case of the applicants (respondents herein) for conferment of work-charge status, immediately on completion of ten years of service, with all benefits incidental thereto.
3. However, in OA No.3207/2015, titled as Narotam Singh v. HPSEB Ltd. & others, decided on 14.12.2015, which stands impugned in CWP No.3301 of 2016, learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, while directing the HPSEB Ltd. (petitioner herein) to confer work-charge status on Narotam Singh (respondent herein), relied upon the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation ., (1990) 1 SCC 361; as also of this Court in CWP No.9970 of 2012, titled as Laxmi Devi v. State of H.P. and others, decided on 26.11.2012.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record so made available, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, for the reasons (a) directions contained already stand complied with and implemented, with respect to similarly situated persons, and in this regard reference can be given of one Shri Sita Ram son of Shri Mangat Ram, vide order dated rt o 31.3.2016, copy whereof was handed over to us during the proceedings, (b) this Court with respect to similarly situated persons, in terms of various decisions, has already affirmed orders similar to the one impugned herein, vide judgments dated 28.7.2010, passed in CWP No.2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar v. State of H.P. and others; 13.5.2013, passed in CWP No.1906 of 2013-A, titled as Hira Singh v. HPSEB Ltd. & anr.; 14.8.2014, passed in CWP No.2551 of 2014, titled as H.P. State Electricity Board and another v. Bhag Singh and others; 10.9.2014, passed in CWP No.179 of 2014, titled as Beg Dass and others v. HPSEB Ltd and anr.; and 20.11.2014, passed in LPA No.621 of 2011, titled as H.P. State Electricity Board Limited and others v. Jagmohan Singh.
5. As such, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the learned Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal. Present petitions are accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Acting Chief Justice ( Ajay Mohan Goel ), September 4, 2017(sd) Judge.