Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 06.11.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 6 November, 2025
2025:HHC:38502
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
CWPOA No.1537 of 2019
Decided on: 06.11.2025
__________________________________________________________
Lok Raj ...Petitioner
.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
...Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?. No of For the petitioner: Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional
rt Advocate General.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Petitioner, Lok Raj, initially filed CWP
No. 1328 of 2013, which stood transferred to Himachal State Administrative Tribunal as T.A. No.1860 of 2015 and upon abolition of Tribunal, the matter was re-transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No.1537 of 2019, seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i). That the respondents may kindly be directed to treat daily wage service of the petitioner in continuity in the year 1994 keeping in view the medical certificate submitted by the petitioner.
(ii). That the respondent department may kindly be directed to grant the work charge status/regularization to the petitioner w.e.f.
the year 1998 instead of the year 2007 with all consequential benefits like arrears, seniority and other service benefits as per the ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:23:16 :::CIS
-2- 2025:HHC:38502 directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the interest of justice and fair play."
FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was .
engaged as daily wage basis in 1988 in Forest Division Shimla and since then he had served under the respondents continuously. It is averred that during the year 1994, the petitioner fell ill due to which he of could not complete 240 days of continuous service in the said year i.e. [1994]. Medical Certificates are rt annexed as [Annexure P-1]. It is averred that after giving benefit of period of ailment as in Medical Certificate [Annexure P-1], the entire service from 1988 may be counted and the petitioner may be granted work charged service/regularization from date of completion of 10 years of continuous daily waged service from 1998 instead of regularizing him from the year 2007 and then to grant the benefit of pay fixation from due date w.e.f. 01.01.1998 with all consequential benefits.
STAND OF RESPONDENT-STATE IN THE REPLY- AFFIDAVIT:
3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, the State ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:23:16 :::CIS
-3- 2025:HHC:38502 Authorities have filed Reply-Affidavit dated 30.05.2013, of Conservator of Forest Shimla, Circle, Shimla.
3(i). Reply-Affidavit disputes the incumbency of .
the petitioner. Reply-Affidavit indicates that the petitioner was engaged as daily waged labourer in Dhami Range of Shimla Forest Division in 1994 and had completed only 164 days during 1994.
of Reply-Affidavit further states that the petitioner was neither eligible for regularization nor for work charge rt status from the date of completion of 10 years of continuous daily waged service w.e.f. 01.01.1998.
Reply-Affidavit states that the petitioner had rendered 8 years of continuous daily wage service with 240 days from the year 1995 till 2006 and in terms of applicable regularization policy, the petitioner was regularized as Forest Worker upon completion of 8 years on 19.10.2007 [Annexure R-2].
REBUTTAL-REJOINDER BY PETITIONER:
4. Petitioner filed a rejoinder enclosing the Certificate dated 03.04.1993, [Annexure P-3] issued by Range Forest Officer Dhami, to show that the petitioner had worked on daily wage basis from ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:23:16 :::CIS
-4- 2025:HHC:38502 1988 to April 1993 with 240 days and in this background, the claim for regularization/work charge status from date of completion of 10 years of continuous .
daily waged service has been reasserted.
5. At the very outset, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on Instructions, states that the petitioner shall be satisfied, in case, work of charge status is granted to the petitioner w.e.f.
01.01.2003 i.e. from the date of completion of 8 years rt of continuous daily wage service with 240 days rendered from 1995 till 31.12.2002 with admissible service benefits. [Statement Taken on Record].
6. Heard, Ms. Archana Dutt, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Navlesh Verma, Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents-State.
ANALYSIS:
7. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the material on record, this Court is of the considered view, that the claim of the petitioner for regularization as Forest Worker [Class-IV], is not tenable, for the following reasons:-
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:23:16 :::CIS -5- 2025:HHC:38502
INELIGIBILITY DISENTITLES PETITIONER FOR
REGULARIZATION:-
7(i). Averments made in the Writ Petition
.
indicates that though the petitioner has set up a case that he was engaged on daily waged basis in 1988 and had worked continuously till 1994 when, he fell ill and thereafter he had rendered continuous service from of 1995 till 2006.
rt This factual position has been seriously disputed by Respondents in Reply-Affidavit, which goes on to show that the petitioner was engaged as daily wage labourer in Dhami Range Forest Division during 1994, in which, he had completed only 164 days. Reply-Affidavit further reveal that the petitioner had rendered continuous service with 240 days since 1995 till 2006 whereafter he was regularized on 19.10.2007 [Annexure R-2] prospectively.
Scrutiny of the averments made in writ petition vis-à-vis the stand of Respondents in Reply-Affidavit, the incumbency of the petitioner is seriously disputed. The claim of the petitioner that he ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:23:16 :::CIS
-6- 2025:HHC:38502 had worked from 1988 to 1994 stands denied by State Authorities with specific averments that the petitioner was engaged during 1994 only. Since the .
petitioner has not rendered 10 years of continuous service as daily wager [being disputed] then, the petitioner being ineligible, for want of completion of 10 years of continuous service, disentitles him for being of considered for regularization. It is not the case of the petitioner that the juniors were regularized or his rt seniority was ignored for the purpose of regularization.
The regularization was granted to the petitioner on 19.10.2007 [Annexure R-2] on completion of 10 years of continuous daily waged service reckoned from 1995 till 2006 as per the existing policy. Reliance placed by petitioner on the Certificate on 03.04.1993, [Annexure P-3], allegedly issued by Range Forest Officer, Dhami cannot be of any assistance to the petitioner, for the reason, that once the disputed question of facts arise then, the same could only be established and proved by way of evidence before the appropriate forum established under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Factum as to whether the petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:23:16 :::CIS
-7- 2025:HHC:38502 had infact worked from 1988 to 1993 or not and whether the Certificate [Annexure P-3] discloses the correct incumbency [in view of the stand of State .
Authorities that petitioner was engaged only in 1994] gives rise to any Industrial Disputes. Being an Industrial Dispute, the claim could only be established by way of leading evidence before the Industrial Tribunal of constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act and not in writ proceedings. In absence of any cogent rt and convincing proof of incumbency, the plea of the petitioner that he had rendered continuous service of 10 years is not logically inferable. Non-completion of 10 years of continuous service disentitles the petitioner for regularization. Further, regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right. An employee alike the petitioner has a limited right to be considered for regularization subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions contained in the regularization policy as applicable, at the relevant time. Non-completion of 10 years of continuous service, disentitles the petitioner for being considered for regularization. Even benefit of regularization can neither be claimed nor granted dehors ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:23:16 :::CIS
-8- 2025:HHC:38502 the regularization policy, as applicable, at the relevant time. Even otherwise, a perusal of Mandays Chart [Annexure R-1], indicates that the petitioner was engaged .
in 1994 and during 1994 he had rendered only 164 days of actual service and even if, the period of alleged sickness of 75 days from 01.01.1994 to 16.03.1994 as in Medical Certificate, [Annexure P-1] of is counted towards actual Mandays of 164 days [as in Annexure R-1], then also, the petitioner does not rt completes 240 days of service during the year 1994.
In these circumstances, once the petitioner has not rendered 240 days of continuous service during 1994 coupled with the fact that the disputed incumbency could only be established by adducing evidence before the forum under Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, the plea of petitioner for reckoning his continuous service from 1994, for purpose of regularization is devoid of any merit and the plea is disallowed.
7(ii). Now coming to the claim of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status from the date of completion of 10 years continuous service in terms of the judgment in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:23:16 :::CIS
-9- 2025:HHC:38502 (supra), the issue regarding conferment of work charge status to daily wagers/muster-roll workers who complete 10 years of continuous service with .
240 days in each calendar year as on 31.12.1993 and to those daily wagers/muster-roll workers who complete 240 days of continuous service during 1993 and had rendered 10 years of continuous service of thereafter were to be granted work charge status from the date they complete 10 years of continuous rt daily wage service in each calendar year in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Raj Upadhaya (supra), in the following terms:-
"4. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we modify the said scheme by substituting paragraphs 1 to 4 of the same by the following paragraphs:
"(1) Daily-wage/muster-roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled, who have completed 10 years or more of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31-12-1993, shall be appointed as work-
charged employees with effect from 1-1-1994 and shall be put in the time-scale of pay applicable to the corresponding lowest grade in the government;
(2) daily-wage/muster-roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled, who have not completed 10 years of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31-12-1993, shall be appointed as work-
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:23:16 :::CIS- 10 - 2025:HHC:38502 charged employees with effect from the date they complete the said period of 10 years of service and on such appointment they shall be put in the time-scale of pay applicable to the lowest grade in the government;
.
(3) daily-wage/muster-roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled who have not completed 10 years of service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31-12-1993, shall be paid daily wages at the rates prescribed by the government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time for daily-wage employees falling in Class III and Class IV till they are appointed as work-charged employees in accordance of with paragraph 2;
(4) daily-wage/muster-roll workers shall be regularised in a phased manner on the basis of rt seniority-cum-suitability including physical fitness. On regularisation they shall be put in the minimum of the time-scale payable to the corresponding lowest grade applicable to the government and would be entitled to all other benefits available to regular government servants of the corresponding grade.
5. The scheme, as modified, shall be implemented with effect from 01.01.1994 and if any excess amount has been received by any employee on the basis of the interim orders passed by this Court, the same shall not be required to be refunded by him."
In the backdrop of the mandate of the judgment in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra), it is borne out that the benefit of work charge status upon completion of 10 years of continuous service in terms of the judgment in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra), is only admissible to those daily wagers who have completed 10 years of continuous ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:23:16 :::CIS
- 11 - 2025:HHC:38502 service with 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.12.1993 and to those who complete aforesaid service thereafter. In instant case, once the petitioner .
was engaged during the year 1994 and petitioner had neither been engaged during 1993 nor has be rendered continuous service of 240 days 1993, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for work charge status of from the date of completion of 10 years of continuous service, in terms of the judgment, in the case of Mool rt Raj Upadhyaya (supra), which was neither applicable nor attracted, in facts of instant case.
CLAIM FOR WORK CHARGE STATUS AFTER 8 YEARS TENABLE AS PER LAW:
7(iii). While dealing with the issue as to whether daily wagers who had not completed 240 days of continuous service during 1993 or were engaged after 01.01.1994 and had rendered continuous service thereafter, were entitled for work charge status from the date they complete 8 years continuous service was declared by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gauri Dutt Versus State of Himachal Pradesh [LHLJ 2008 HP 366; CWP No.778 of 2006], in the following terms:-::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:23:16 :::CIS
- 12 - 2025:HHC:38502 "1. By this judgment we are disposing of the aforesaid batch of writ petitions since the following common questions of law arise for decision in these petitions.
1. Whether the scheme of putting the workers on work charged basis as approved by the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case .
is applicable to those daily waged employees who had not completed minimum of 240 days of service in a calendar year as on 31st December, 1993 ?
2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, what will be the process of regularization of services of those of employees who had not completed 240 days of service in a calendar year as on 31st December, 1993 or had joined service after Ist January, 1994 ?
rt
3. Whether the scheme, as approved by the Apex Court, in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case, is only applicable to the employees of the Irrigation and Public Health Department and Public Works Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh or is applicable to all the daily rated employees working under the Government of H.P. ?
4. Where if an employee has rendered service on daily waged basis on 2 separate posts in lower and higher scales, can the employee be given benefit of the service rendered by him in the lower scale and be regularized in the higher scale by combining the two services after 10 years ?
13. We have considered both the schemes and find that the dispute before the Apex Court was in respect of the employees who had joined services much before 31.12.1993. None of the schemes dealt with employees engaged thereafter, except that under para 4 of the scheme as amended general directions were issued for regularization of all daily waged muster roll workers in a phased manner. Para 1 of the approved scheme deals only with employees who had completed 10 years of service as on 31.12.1993. Para 2 of the scheme deals ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:23:16 :::CIS
- 13 - 2025:HHC:38502 with employees who had not completed 10 years of service as on 31.12.1993. However, we are of the firm opinion that para 2 relates only to employees who had at least served for one year prior to 31.12.1993. This scheme was a one time scheme dealing with employees who had .
rendered sufficient service upto 31.12.1993. We are not in agreement with the learned counsel for the employees that this scheme applies to daily waged employees engaged thereafter. The only portion of the scheme which may relate to such employees is para 4 which relates to regularization of all daily waged/muster of roll workers. Paras 1 & 2 of the scheme relate to the workers specified in those paragraphs.
15. The scheme does not deal with future rt contingencies. We cannot read into the judgment of the Supreme Court or in the scheme as approved by the Supreme Court anything more than what is stated in it. As per our reading of the scheme the same only applies to employees who had either completed 10 years of continuous service as on 31.12.1993 or the employees who had rendered one or more years' of service, but had not completed 10 years of service as on 31.12.1993. This scheme does not apply to those employees who had not completed even one year of service as on 31.12.1993 or who were employed thereafter. The first question is answered accordingly.
16. Under para 4 of the scheme the State was under an obligation to regularize all daily waged/muster roll workers whether they had joined prior to 31.12.1993 or thereafter. The State has framed a scheme in this behalf on 6th May, 2000. In our opinion those employees who are not governed by the direction given in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case as set out by us above, shall be governed by the scheme of 2000. The second question is answered accordingly."
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:23:16 :::CIS- 14 - 2025:HHC:38502 In the backdrop of the mandate of law in the case of Gauri Dutt [supra], this Court is of the considered view that once the petitioner was .
engaged as Labourer in Dhami Forest Range during 1994 and had completed only 164 days of actual daily waged service during 1994, therefore, the continuous service is to be counted from 1995 and the petitioner of became eligible and entitled for work charge status from the date he complete 8 years of continuous service rt [w.e.f. 01.01.2003] as per the judgment, in the case of Gauri Dutt [supra].
CLAIM FOR WORK CHARGE STATUS RE-AFFIRMED IN ASHWANI KUMAR AND SURAJMANI'S CASE:
7(iv). Claim for the petitioner for work charge status in terms of the judgment, in the case of Gauri Dutt (supra), was reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3111 of 2016, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ashwani Kumar, and was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5753 of 2019, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Ashwani Kumar, and has now been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:23:16 :::CIS
- 15 - 2025:HHC:38502 State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Surajmani [Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, decided on 26.02.2025], entitling the daily wagers for work .
charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service, in the following terms:
5. The workers who had been regularised in service in the Public Health Department under various schemes announced by the State Government from time to time but had not been of granted the status of "work-charged" had approached the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 titled as Rakesh rt Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. which came to be disposed of on 28.07.2010 by opining as under:
"6. The simple question is whether the delay defeats justice? In analyzing the above issue, it has to be borne in mind that the petitioners are only class-IV workers (Beldars). The schemes announced by the Government clearly provided that the department concerned should consider the workmen concerned for bringing them on the work charged category. So, there is an obligation cast on the department to consider the cases of the daily waged workmen for conferment of the work-charged status, being on a work-charged establishment, on completion of the required number of years in terms of the policy. At the best, the petitioners can only be denied the interest on the eligible benefits and not the benefits as such, which accrued on them as per the policy and under which policy, the department was bound to confer the status, subject to the workmen satisfying the required conditions.
7. In the above circumstances, these Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case(s) of the ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:23:16 :::CIS
- 16 - 2025:HHC:38502 petitioners herein for conferment of workcharged status, subject to their eligibility in terms of the policy dated 3.4.2000 and as explained in 6.5.2000 policy, as extracted above. Needful in this regard shall be done within a period of three months from the date of production .
of the copy of this judgment by the respective petitioners. Needless to say that the question of conferment of work charged status does not arise in case the establishment ceases to be a work charged establishment and hence, the conferment of the status will not arise after the abolition of the work-charged status of the establishment."
of
6. The aforesaid order came to be affirmed by this Court in Special leave Petition (Civil) No. 33570 of 2010 and all connected matters were disposed rt of on 15.01.2015. Later, certain workers who had been engaged on daily wage basis in Public Works Department of Himachal Pradesh, after having completed eight years of continuous service prayed for conferment of work-charged status by filing O.A. No. 412 of 2016 before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. Their prayer was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.06.2016. Upon challenging the same by the State in Civil Writ Petition No. 3111 of 2016 titled as State of H.P. and Ors. Vs. Sh.
Ashwani Kumar the High Court, relying upon its judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 4489 of 2009 titled as Ravi Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Ors., decided on 14.12.2009, maintained the order of the Tribunal. The order of the High Court in Ashwani Kumar (Supra) has also been affirmed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019 titled as State of H.P. and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar by order dated 22.07.2019, wherein this Court observed as under:
"3. We are not disturbing the finding of the Tribunal, which was affirmed by the High Court, with respect to the conferral of the status of the work charge from 01.01.2003. However, as regularization has been made only in the year 2006, obviously, notional benefit could have to ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:23:16 :::CIS
- 17 - 2025:HHC:38502 be granted as the petition was initially filed in the year 2013.
4. Thus, we make the modification that the respondent would be entitled only for notional benefits of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
.
Accordingly, with the aforesaid modification in the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court, the appeal is disposed of."
7. In this factual scenario, when we consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, it would not detain us for too long to brush aside the of contention of the learned senior counsel and learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Himachal Pradesh. Inasmuch as the issue involved in these appeals has been laid rt to rest by this Court in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (Supra). That apart, this Court, while examining a similar plea in Ashwani Kumar's (Supra) case in Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019 disposed of on 22.07.2019, has specifically addressed this issue by arriving at a conclusion that the order of the Tribunal directing conferment of 'work charge status' on completion of eight (08) years of service, did not suffer from any infirmity and it was reiterated order of the Tribunal was just and proper.
8. However, in order to allay the apprehension of the State as expressed thereunder and to safeguard the interest of the State which otherwise would have burdened the exchequer with extra benefits being conferred on the employees who had not been regularly appointed, this Court has, as a succor to the State, restricted the claim or, in other words, modified the order of the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court by arriving at a conclusion that the petitioners/appellants therein would be entitled to the notional benefits of the order passed by the Tribunal and accordingly disposed of the said appeal.
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:23:16 :::CIS- 18 - 2025:HHC:38502
9. It would not be out of context to refer at this juncture itself that the State, in its wisdom, having felt that the subsequent schemes having been formulated and implemented, would alter the situation and, therefore, order dated 12.04.1994 passed in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's .
(Supra) case has to be modified, had approached this Court by filing an Interlocutory Application being IA No. 3 in the year 2005 in the aforesaid Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case, i.e., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 787 of 1987. A perusal of the said application and the averments made thereunder would clearly indicate that the very same contentions urged, pleas advanced and of arguments put forth today before us were the ones which were urged/raised in the said application. Though Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned rt senior counsel appearing for the State would fairly submit that the said application was withdrawn on the ground of subsequent schemes having been formulated and implemented by the State of Himachal Pradesh, but we are unable to accept the said proposition howsoever attractive it may be, for the simple reason that the said application was dismissed simpliciter as withdrawn. Yet another factor which sways our mind to reject the contention raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the State would be the fact that the State having accepted the judgment of Ashwani Kumar (Supra), has implemented the same and it is in this background, the High Court in the impugned order has observed that the State cannot adopt pick and choose policy.
10. For the cumulative reasons aforestated, we are of the considered view that the dicta laid down by this Court vide order dated 22.07.2019 in Ashwani Kumar's (Supra) case which is based on the judgment of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (Supra) holds the field and would also be applicable to the Respondents herein who had approached the Tribunal or the High Court seeking similar relief. As such, the Respondents shall be entitled for grant of ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:23:16 :::CIS
- 19 - 2025:HHC:38502 'work-charged' status from the date of completion of 8 years of service. However, we hold that the relief in the present appeals will be limited to notional benefits as explained in paragraph 3 and 4 of Ashwani Kumar's (Supra) case in Civil Appeal No(s).
.
5753 of 2019 and the present appeals stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
11. We also make it explicitly clear that the State in its endeavour of implementing the orders of the Tribunal, High Court or this Court, if having paid the amounts in excess, would be at liberty to take such steps as it deems fit without of insisting for one time recovery.
12. It is further underscored that this judgment would necessarily be a judgment in rem and rt the State shall hence forth not take recourse to employing personnel as daily wagers but shall make appointments only in accordance with law, as enumerated in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1].
8. In above backdrop, Learned State Counsel submits that since the claim for grant of work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wages service, has now been raised, during the course of hearing, therefore, the petitioner may be directed to make a representation, asserting claim for work charge service of 8 years as per Gauri Dutt, Ashwani Kumar and Surajmani (supra).
8(i). The above stand of Learned State Counsel,
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:23:16 :::CIS
- 20 - 2025:HHC:38502
appears to be genuine, for the reason, that the
judgment in case of Surajmani (supra) is a
judgment in rem. Being a judgment in rem,
.
the State Authorities are bound to extend the
benefits flowing from aforesaid judgment to all daily wagers, irrespective of the departments. Even, the Division Bench of this Court, in various judgments of in LPA No. 82 of 2025, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Pritam Chand, decided rt on 27.08.2025, LPA No. 100 of 2025, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Layak Ram, decided on 27.08.2025 and LPA No. 231 of 2025, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Gita Ram Sharma, decided on 27.08.2025 has reiterated the entitlement of daily wagers for grant of work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service to all incumbents working in Government Departments including the Respondent-Forest Department. It has further been held that there is neither the requirement of work charge establishment nor the abolition of work charge establishment or conversion of work charge posts ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:23:16 :::CIS
- 21 - 2025:HHC:38502 into regular post or otherwise shall not have any effect on entitlement of daily wages for work charge status.
The accrued right of consideration and resultant work .
charge status in terms of the judgment in case of Surajmani (supra) being a judgment in rem, cannot be kept in abeyance. Non consideration leads to depriving the petitioner of work charge status and pay fixation of from due date and the inaction of the State Authorities amounts to negating or restricting or curtailing the rt benefits, which accrue in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Surajmani (supra).
In totality of facts and circumstances of instant case, this Court refrains from issuing a mandate to the State Authorities, to grant work charge status to the petitioner from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous service automatically, but, directs the petitioner to make a representation, asserting a claim for grant of work charge status from date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service, in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:23:16 :::CIS
- 22 - 2025:HHC:38502 of Surajmani (supra), in terms of the Mandays Chart [Annexure R-1], which shall be examined by the State Authorities hereinafter, in accordance with the judgment .
in case of Surajamani (supra).
DIRECTIONS:
9. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present petition of is disposed of, in the following terms:
"(i) Claim of petitioner for regularization by rt taking into account the daily wage service from 1988 till 2006 [including the period of ailment in 1994 as per Annexure P-1] being disputed by State Authorities, disentitles the petitioner for regularization from date of completion of 10 years of said service for regularization;
(ii). As prayed, petitioner shall make representation to Respondent, asserting his claim for conferment of work charge status based on Mandays Chart [Annexure R-1] from completion of 8 years of continuous service, in light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Surajmani (supra), within two months from today;
(iii) Upon consideration and acceptance of claim, if any, State Authorities shall grant work charge status to petitioner from due date with pay fixation benefits;
(iv) Upon conferment of work charge status, the benefits shall accrue to the petitioner from due date notionally but without any past arrears;
(v) Entire exercise shall be completed within
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:23:16 :::CIS
- 23 - 2025:HHC:38502
three months from today;
(vi) Parties to bear respective costs.
In aforesaid terms, the instant petition is .
disposed of and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Ranjan Sharma) Judge of 6th November, 2025 [himani] rt ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:23:16 :::CIS