Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others vs Pritam Chand on 27 August, 2025
[2025:HHC:28989] IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No: 82 of 2025 Reserved on: 14.08.2025 Announced on: 27.08.2025 __________________________________________________________ .
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ...Appellants Versus Pritam Chand ...Respondent Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting ? Yes.
For the appellants: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy
r Advocate General.
For the respondent: Ex parte.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge
State Authorities, being the appellants, have come up before this Court, assailing the Judgment dated 05.09.2023, passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWPOA No. 1429 of 2019, In re: Pritam Chand versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others [referred to as Impugned Judgment], in directing the appellants herein, to grant work charged status to the Respondent-Employee [Pritam Chand] w.e.f.
1.09.2012 from the date of completion of 8 years 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
-2- [2025:HHC:28989] of daily waged service, countable from 01.09.2004, with all consequential benefits.
FACTUAL MATRIX BEFORE WRIT COURT:
.
2. In CWPOA No 1429 of 2019, Respondent-
writ petitioner had set up a case that he was engaged on 01.04.1998 on daily wage basis with appellant department in Bilaspur Forest Division and he worked continuously yet his services were disengaged verbally on 09.10.2003 illegally. Against his disengagement, he submitted a representation on 22.12.2003, whereafter, he was re-engaged w.e.f.
06.02.2004 but his services were again disengaged verbally on 01.09.2004 without complying with the mandate of Section 25 (F) (G) (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Aggrieved against his disengagement on 01.09.2004, the Respondent-Writ Petitioner raised an industrial dispute, upon which, a reference no 149 of 2006, was framed by the appropriate government. The Learned Labour Court answered the reference by passing an Award on 07.05.2010 [Annexure P-2 in writ file], whereby, his termination was quashed and set-aside, being violative of ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
-3- [2025:HHC:28989] Sections 25 (G) and 25 (H) of the ID Act; with directions to the appellants to reinstate him in service without any back-wages within 90 days .
from the date of passing of the award. The State Authorities re-engaged him in service on 16.08.2010 and thereafter, he filed the instant CWP No 1029 of 2013 [converted as CWPOA No 1429 of 2019] for claiming regularization/work-charged status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service with all consequential benefits accruing therefrom.
STAND OF THE APPELLANTS-STATE AUTHORITIES BEFORE WRIT COURT:
2(i). In reply before writ court, the Appellants-
State Authorities admitted the factual matrix, by stating, that the petitioner had raised an industrial dispute and in terms of Award dated 07.05.2010, the termination was quashed and set aside; and the Respondent-writ petitioner was re-engaged w.e.f.
16.08.2010. The Appellants-State Authorities took a stand that seniority of the Respondent is being maintained by the appellant department after his re-engagement in terms of Award dated 07.05.2010.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
-4- [2025:HHC:28989] Reply-Affidavit before the Writ Court indicates that except for the year 2000, Respondent-writ petitioner had not completed 240 days of service in any .
calendar year. Reply-Affidavit further stated that the case of petitioner is neither covered for regularization nor for grant of work-charged status as per the policy of State Government and directions passed by the Courts from time to time. Accordingly, the 2(ii).
r to prayer was made for dismissing the writ petition.
REBUTTAL BEFORE THE WRIT COURT:
Though no rejoinder was filed, yet, the Respondent filed an application i.e. CMP (T) No. 150 of 2022 before the Writ Court, stating that, junior incumbents have been regularized w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and therefore, the petitioner may be considered for regularization/work-charged status in terms of the applicable policy and the law.
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 05.09.2023 BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE:
3. During the pendency of instant petition though Respondent-writ petitioner stands regularized w.e.f. 24.06.2019, yet, the Learned Single Judge passed the Impugned Judgment on 05.09.2023, ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
-5- [2025:HHC:28989] holding the Respondent-writ petitioner entitled for work-charged status from the date of completion of 8 years continuous daily wage service countable .
from 01.09.2004 with all consequential benefits, in the following terms:
"8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the record of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is at least entitled for conferment of work charge status upon him post completion of eight years' of service as from 01.09.2004, i.e., the date from which the termination of services r of the petitioner by the respondents-
Department was held to be bad in law by the learned Tribunal.
9. Though, in terms of the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is stated to have been engaged by the Department w.e.f. 01.04.1998, but as there are no findings returned by a Court of law with regard to the status of the petitioner in between 09.10.2003 and 06.02.2004, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice in case work charge status is conferred upon the petitioner from the date of his termination by the respondent-
Department, which has been held to be bad by the learned Labour Court, as these findings returned by the learned Court have attained finality. Learned counsel for the petitioner, agrees to the same.
10. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that work charge status be conferred upon the petitioner with all consequential benefits from the date of completion ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
-6- [2025:HHC:28989] of eight years as counted from 01.09.2004 onwards."
CHALLENGE TO IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 05.09.2023 IN INSTANT APPEAL:
4.
.
The State Authorities have assailed the Impugned Judgment dated 05.09.2023, on the grounds, firstly, that the Learned Single Judge had ignored the stand set-up in the pleadings and therefore, the judgment being perverse, was liable to be set-aside; and secondly, the issue regarding conferment of work-charged status on completion of 8 years of daily-wage service remained the subject matter in LPA No.165 of 2021, State of Himachal Pradesh & Others versus Surajmani and another and other connected matters, which has been assailed by the State Authorities before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No 23016 of 2023, In re: State of Himachal Pradesh & Others versus Surajmani and Anr and in view of the pendency of SLP, the aforesaid judgment has not attained finality ; and thirdly, the Appellant-department {i.e. Forest Department} did not have a work-charged establishment and the impugned judgment directing ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
-7- [2025:HHC:28989] to grant work-charged status was erroneous ; and fourthly, grant of work charge status was contrary to terms of judgment in case of Jaswant Singh .
and others versus Union of India and Others, (1979) 4 SCC 440 ; and fifthly, the directions for granting work charge status was not covered by judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316 and the judgment in case of Rakesh Kumar vs State of H.P. & Others [CWP No. 2735 of 2010] and lastly, the directions in the Impugned Judgement to grant all consequential benefits from the date of grant of work charge status was contrary to the mandate of Law, in the case of Surajmani and therefore, the same was erroneous.
5. Heard, Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Learned Deputy Advocate General for appellants-State. The respondent-writ petitioner remained unrepresented and in terms of the orders dated 26.12.2024, he was proceeded against ex-parte in instant appeal.
MATTER IN ISSUE COVERED BY JUDGMENT IN SURAJMANI [CIVIL APPEAL No. 1595 OF 2025] DECIDED ON 06.02.2025:
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS-8- [2025:HHC:28989]
6. Though the issue involved in the instant appeal is no longer res integra, in view of the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State .
of Himachal Pradesh & Others versus Surajmani and Another [Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025] and other connected matters, decided on 06.02.2025, yet at the insistence of the Learned State Counsel, this Court proceeds to adjudicate the instant appeal, at this stage itself.
ANALYSIS
r OF to
GROUNDS
CONTENTIONS RAISED:
IN LPA AND
7. First contention of Learned State Counsel for the appellants is that the impugned judgment dated 05.09.2023, was passed by the Learned Single Judge by ignoring the pleadings and the same is liable to be set-aside.
The above contention is misconceived, for the reason, that the Impugned Judgment dated 05.09.2023 takes into account the pleadings which reveals the factual matrix, including Award dated 07.05.2010, whereby, the termination was quashed set-aside and the Respondent-writ petitioner was reinstated by counting daily waged service from ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
-9- [2025:HHC:28989] 1.9.2004. Factum of continuous service was corroborated by man-days [Annexure R-II in writ file] and based on this, the Learned Single Judge .
directed the State Authorities to grant benefit of work-charged status to the Respondent -writ petitioner, from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily-wage service {w.e.f 1.9.2012].
In these circumstances, the Impugned Judgment, is well reasoned and the same has been passed after taking into account the material on record, does not warrant any interference, in instant proceedings.
8. Second contention of the Learned State Counsel is that the issue regarding conferment of work-charged status on completion of 8 years of daily waged service, which was decided in LPA No. 165 of 2021, State of HP & Others versus Surajmani and another, has not attained finality as SLP(C) No. 23016 of 2023, is pending before Honble Supreme Court.
Though on the face value, the above contention appears to be attractive but the events subsequent to filing of the instant appeal indicates ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 10 - [2025:HHC:28989] that the aforesaid contention does not holds good any more. The instant Letters Patent Appeal was filed along-with an application for condonation of .
delay before this Court on 27.06.2024. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 24.10.2024, when, notice was issued to the non-applicant/respondent-writ petitioner but due to his non-appearance, he was proceeded against ex-parte. Thereafter, in terms of the orders dated 11.3.2025, the delay in filing the LPA was condoned. At this stage, on a query by this Court, Learned State Counsel informs that SLP (C) No. 23016 of 2023 [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025], In re: State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr versus Surajmani and other connected cases stands decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.02.2025, entitling daily wagers for work-charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily-wage service. Since, the SLP in case of Surajmani stands decided, therefore, the Impugned Judgment dated 05.09.2023, directing the appellants to confer work-charge status to the Respondent-writ petitioner herein, from the date ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 11 - [2025:HHC:28989] of completion of 8 years of daily wage service countable from 01.09.2004 does not suffer from any illegality.
.
9. Third contention of Learned State Counsel is that the Appellant-Forest Department does not have a work-charged establishment and therefore, the work charge status cannot be extended to the Respondent-writ petitioner.
Before adverting to this contention, it is necessary to have a recap of the concept of "work charge status", in case of daily wagers serving in different departments throughout the State.
CONCEPT OF WORK CHARGE STATUS IN STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH:
9(i). Notably, in State of Himachal Pradesh there were hundreds of daily wage workers who were engaged and had rendered prolonged service in peculiar geographical and topographical conditions of the State. In recognition of the prolonged daily wage service, the State Government formulated a "scheme for betterment of skilled and unskilled daily wage/muster-roll workers in all government ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 12 - [2025:HHC:28989] departments" by putting them in the time scale as applicable to the corresponding lowest grade of in the government. Upon grant of time scale .
these daily wagers were termed as "work charge employees." The aforesaid scheme formulated by the government, and the same was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya versus State of Himachal Pradesh wage/muster-roll r to [1994 Supp (2) SCC 316, mandating that the daily workers were to be appointed as work charge employees in the time scale of pay applicable to the corresponding lowest grade in the government from the date they complete
10 years continuous daily wage service. Later on, the State Authorities notified a policy on 3.4.2000 which provided for conferring work charge status to the daily wagers on completion of 8 years of continuous service as on 31.3.2000. This policy of 3.4.2000 remained in vogue till the issuance of another policy on 9.6.2004. In the backdrop of these policies, the issue as which of the daily wagers would be governed by the policy of 3.4.2000, ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 13 - [2025:HHC:28989] was adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gauri Dutt & Others vs State of HP, Latest HLJ 2008 [HP] 366, by mandating .
that those daily wagers, who had completed one year of continuous service {240 days service} during the years 1993 i.e. prior to 31.12.1993 would be granted work charge status from the date they complete 10 years of continuous service in terms r Raj to of the judgement of the Honble Supreme Court in case of Mool Upadhyaya (supra) whereas, those daily wagers who were engaged on or after 1.1.1994 and rendered continuous service thereafter were to be granted the work-charge status from date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage/muster-roll service. The issue regarding the conferment of work charge status to daily wagers on completion of 8 years continuous service was adjudicated by this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar [CWP No. 2735 of 2010, which was upheld in SLP (C) No. 8830-8869 of 2011 on 15.01.2015].
In another matter, the issue as to whether for conferring work charge status there was requirement ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 14 - [2025:HHC:28989] of a post and/or whether the abolition of work charge cadre/establishment could have impact on granting work charge status, became the subject .
matter before the State Administrative Tribunal in OA and then before another coordinate Division Bench of this Court, in CWP No. 3111 of 2016 in case of State of Himachal Pradesh versus Ashwani Kumar. The aforesaid judgement was assailed before the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh versus Ashwini Kumar, [Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019, decided on 22.07.2019] whereby, the judgement passed by this Court was upheld on the issue of grant of work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service. The directions passed by the Division Bench of this Court that for conferment of work charge status there was neither a need for work charge establishment nor its cessation or abolition would make any difference and there was no pre-requirement for creation of a post and the availability or non-availability of a post was not a pre-requisite for conferment ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 15 - [2025:HHC:28989] of work charge status. Even the findings that abolition or conversion of work charge posts, if any, will not come in the way of State Authorities .
for according work charge status to daily wages, who were working in any of the government departments throughout the State, on completion of 8 years of continuous service. However, while deciding the Civil Appeal in case of Ashwani Kumar (supra), r to the directions passed by Learned State Administrative Tribunal, which were upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No 3111 of 2016, for granting "all consequential benefits"
was modified by directing to confer of work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service "notionally". Recently, the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ashwani Kumar (supra) stands reinforced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of State of Himachal Pradesh versus Surajmani [supra], [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, SLP © 23016 of 2023, arising from LPA No. 165 of 2021, decided on 06.02.2025], entitling the daily wagers for work ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 16 - [2025:HHC:28989] charge status in applicable time scale on completion of 8 years of daily waged service, on notional basis.
LAW OF THIS COURT ON CONCEPT OF WORK CHARGE STATUS IS ALSO PARI-MATERIA .
TO DECISION IN SURAJMANI:
9(ii). In addition, in a plethora of judgments, daily wagers have been held entitled for work charge status, in the time scale of pay as is admissible to corresponding category of employees scale on completion of requisite service of 8 years of daily waged service irrespective of the fact as to whether the work charge establishment exists or not in the case of Pritam Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh, CWPOA No 7497 of 2020, decided on 29.7.2024, in the following terms:-
"21. With respect to ground taken by the respondents Department that Department is not having work-charged establishment and, thus, benefit of period of service as a work charged employee cannot be extended to the petitioner, it is apt to record that in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case an affidavit was filed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, formulating a Scheme for granting work charged status to all daily-waged employees, serving in the State of Himachal Pradesh, ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 17 - [2025:HHC:28989] in all Departments, irrespective of the fact that Department is/was having work-charged establishment or not.
22. In Gauri Dutt's case, it has been .
held that the scheme formulated in Mool Raj Upadhaya's case is applicable to daily-waged employees working in any department of the state of Himachal Pradesh and the employees, who are not governed by the directions given in Mool Raj Upadhaya's case, shall be governed by a Scheme framed by the State in this regard and it has also been observed that granting of work- charged status would mean that an employee would get regular scale of pay.
23. Upholding the order passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 10.5.2018, in CWP No. 3111 of 2016, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ashwani Kumar, has pronounced that work-
charged establishment is not a prerequisite for conferment of work- charged status nor conversion of work-
charged employee into regular employee would make such establishment non- existent.
24. Civil Appeal No.5753 of 2019, titled as State of H.P. vs. Ashwani Kumar, preferred by the State in Ashwani Kumar's case has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 22.07.2019. Similarly, SLP ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 18 - [2025:HHC:28989] (C) No. 8830-8869 of 2011 preferred by the State in Rakesh Kumar's case also stands dismissed by the Supreme Court on 15.01.2015.
25. Term "work-charge", in Himachal .
Pradesh, is used in different context.
A person, working on daily-waged basis, before his regularization, is granted work-charged status on completion of specified number of years as daily wager and effect thereof is that thereafter non-completion of 240 days in a calendar year would not result into his ouster from the service or debar him from getting the benefit of length of service for that particular year. Normally, work-
charged status is conferred upon a daily-wager, on accrual of his right for regularization, on completion of prescribed period of service, but for non-regularization is for want of regular vacancy in the department or for any other just and valid reason. Therefore, it is a period interregnum daily-wage service and regularization, which is altogether different form the temporary establishment of work charge, as discussed in the judgment of the Apex Court relied upon by the State and, for practice in Himachal Pradesh, work-charged status is not conferred upon the person employed in a project but upon such daily- wage workers, who are to be continued after particular length of service for availability of work but without ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 19 - [2025:HHC:28989] regularization for want of creation of post by Government for his regularization /regular appointment. Therefore, work is always available in such cases and the charge of a daily wager is created .
thereon to avoid his disengagement for reasons upon which a daily-wager can be dispensed with from service.
26. On conferment of work-charged status, sword of disengagement, hanging on the neck of workmen, is removed on completion of specified period of daily-waged service, as thereafter instead of daily-wage, the employee would get regular pay-scale and would be entitled to other consequential benefits for which a daily-waged employee is not entitled.
27. In response to plea that work- charged establishment does not exist in the respondent Department, learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred pronouncements of this High Court in cases CWPOA No. 5748 of 2019, titled Man Singh Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others; CWPOA No. 52 of 2019, titled Beli Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another; CWPOA No. 5566 of 2019, titled as Reema Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others; and CWPOA No. 5660 of 2019, titled Ghanshyam Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others; LPA No. 151 of 2021, titled State of HP Vs. Beli Ram, decided on 09.08.2023; CWPOA No. 5554 of 2019, titled Daulat ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 20 - [2025:HHC:28989] Ram vs. State of HP and others; CWPOA No.6468 of 2020 titled Uggam Ram vs. State of HP and others decided on 09.11.2023; and CWPOA No. 6151 of 2020 titled Rashid Mohammed vs. .
State of HP and others decided on 13.06.2024; wherein similar plea of respondent-State did not find favour of the Court.
28. According to pronouncement in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case, clarified in Gauri Dutt's case, work charge status was to be conferred irrespective of existence of work charge establishment. The said fact has not been considered in Rakesh Kumar's case. In fact, in Rakesh Kumar's case, this issue was not adjudicated but without considering Mool Raj's case and without assigning any reason, a passing observation was made. Whereas this issue has been adjudicated and decided in subsequent judgment in Ashwani Kumar's case. Therefore, observations made on this issue in Rakesh Kumar's case are not binding especially when Civil Appeal in Ashwani Kumar's case has been dismissed by Supreme Court.
Therefore, abolition or non-existence of work charge establishment in the respondent-Department has no effect on the rights of petitioner for conferment of work-charged status after completion of 8 years in terms of Policy of the Government as well as verdict of Rakesh Kumar's ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 21 - [2025:HHC:28989] case.
29. For conferment of work-charged status, work-charged establishment in the Department is not prerequisite. The same has also been affirmed by .
the Principal Division Bench of this Court in judgment dated 9.8.2023 passed in LPA No 151 of 2021, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Beli Ram also."
In above backdrop and in the light of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Mool Raj Upadhyaya, Ashwani Kumar and Surajmani [supra] and the judgements of this Court in the case of Gauri Dutt, Rakesh Kumar and in Pritam Singh {CWPOA No 7497 of 2020, decided on 29.7.2024}; the contention of Learned State Counsel that the Forest Department, does not have a work-charge establishment cannot sustain, for the reason, that the right and entitlement of the Respondent-writ petitioner and other similar daily wagers/muster-roll workers of all government departments for being conferred work charge status on completion of 8 years continuous daily wage service, in terms of the law, cannot be permitted ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 22 - [2025:HHC:28989] to be abridged, curtailed, restricted or taken away in any manner and to any extent, by the State Authorities. The Impugned Judgment passed by .
Learned Single Judge, entitling the Respondent writ petitioner for work-charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged /muster-roll service being in conformity with the mandate of law declared by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra), which stands reinforced in the case of Surajmani (supra), does not warrant any interference, in the instant proceedings.
10. Fourth contention of the Learned State Counsel is that in terms of judgment in the case of Jaswant Singh and others versus Union of India and Others, (1979) 4 SCC 440, the directions given by Learned Single Judge for granting work charge employee was erroneous.
The above contention is misconceived, for the reason, that the judgment in Jaswant Singh's case is distinguishable on facts. Even a perusal of Paras 2 and 3 of the judgment in the case ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 23 - [2025:HHC:28989] of Jaswant Singh [supra] indicates that entire strength of employees was work charged engaged for execution of specified work in the project i.e. .
Beas Project ; and upon completion of work for which they were employed, their services automatically came to an end ; and their pay and allowances was chargeable against separate head of cost of work ; and aforesaid judgment covered only those work charged employees whose conditions of service were governed by Award of 1974 and such employees were neither entitled to relief of payment of gratuity act nor any other retrenched benefits by the respective employer. Thus, the plea of the appellants set up on the basis of Jaswant Singh's case is devoid of any merit and is accordingly turned down, in facts of instant matter.
On the other hand, in the instant case, it is not the case of Appellants-State Authorities that the Respondent-Employee was engaged in particular project for a particular work and/or such work-project had closed. Besides, even, a perusal of the man-days chart [Annexure R-II in ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 24 - [2025:HHC:28989] writ file] would reveal that Respondent-workman had been serving in appellant department since 1998 but his services were disengaged illegally .
w.e.f. 01.09.2004. This action was assailed before the Labour Court leading to passing of an Award on 07.05.2010 [Annexure P-1 in writ records], wherein, the termination was quashed and the appellants were directed to reengage/reinstate him in service. Pursuant to to Award, was reengaged on 16.08.2010. After quashing of r the Respondent termination, Respondent-writ petitioner is entitled for continuity in service from 01.09.2004 and a resultant right to be conferred the work-charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service, countable from 01.09.2004. The Impugned judgment directing the State Authorities to grant work charge status to the Respondent-workman from date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service [w.e.f. 01.09.2012], despite being regularized from a subsequent date [in 2019], is as per judgement of the Honble Supreme Court State of HP versus ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 25 - [2025:HHC:28989] Gehar Singh (2007) 12 SCC 43, does not call for any interference and the directions to confer work charge status, as mandated by law, does .
not suffer from any perversity and illegality.
11. Fifth contention of Learned State Counsel is that the case of the Respondent-writ petitioner-
employee [Pritam Chand] is neither covered by the judgment in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya nor the judgment in the case of Rakesh Kumar and therefore, impugned judgment dated 05.09.2023, directing to confer the work-charge status to the respondent is unsustainable.
The above contention is misconceived, in view of the fact that the Honble Supreme Court, in State of Himachal Pradesh and Others versus Surajmani & Another [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025 decided on 06.02.2025], has mandated that the judgement in case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya, still holds the field and this dictum was affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court in case of Ashwani Kumar (supra) and the same stands reinforced by the Honble Supreme Court in case of Surajmani ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 26 - [2025:HHC:28989] (supra), entitling the daily wage workers for work
-charge status from the date of completion of 8 years continuous service, with directions to .
the State Authorities to extend this benefit without adopting a pick and choose policy. The operative part of the judgement in the case of Surajmani (supra) reads as under:-
"4. This Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P. reported in 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316 held as under:
"2. A Scheme for Betterment r (Appointment) Regularization of Muster
-Roll/Daily-Wagers in HimachalPradesh has been prepared by the Government of Himachal Pradesh and the same has been placed on record along with the supplementary affidavit of Shri K.J.B.V. Subramanyam dated 7-12-1992 in WP (C) No. 249 of 1988.
3. ...xxx....
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;
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS- 27 - [2025:HHC:28989] (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-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 r daily-wage employees falling in Class III and Class IV till they are appointed as work-charged employees in accordance with paragraph 2;
(4) daily-wage/muster-roll workers shall be regularized in a phased manner on the basis of seniority
-cum-suitability including physical fitness. On regularization 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 workers who had been regularized in service in the Public Health Department under various schemes announced by the State Government from time to time but had not been granted the status of "work-charged" had approached the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 titled as Rakesh ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 28 - [2025:HHC:28989] 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 r 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 petitioners herein for conferment of work charged 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 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 29 - [2025:HHC:28989] 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."
.
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 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. 412of 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 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 30 - [2025:HHC:28989] 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 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."
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 arguments put forth today before us were the ones which were urged/ raised in the said application. Though Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned senior counsel appearing for the State would fairly ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 31 - [2025:HHC:28989] 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 afore- stated, 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 '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 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 32 - [2025:HHC:28989] 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."
.
12. Last contention of Learned State Counsel is that the directions contained in the impugned judgement for giving work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of daily wage service with "all consequential benefits" is contrary to the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Surajmani (supra) whereby, "notional benefits" were to be granted.
12(i). At the sake of repetition, it is necessary to have a recap of Paras 8, 10 and 12 of the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh versus Surajmani [in Civil Appeal No 1595 of 2025, decided on 06.02.2025] which read as under:
"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 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 33 - [2025:HHC:28989] 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.
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 '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...::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 34 - [2025:HHC:28989]
12. It is further underscored that this judgment would necessarily be a judgment in rem and 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]."
12(ii). Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has mandated in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).11170 of 2024, in Re; The State of H.P. & Ors. Versus Janak Dev Sharma, decided on 26.05.2025, mandating that the judgment in case of Surajmani (supra) is judgment in rem with the further mandate that the directions contained in Surajmani (supra) would apply mutatis mutandis in all the cases having same facts, in the following terms:-
"5. It is experienced that despite passing the judgment in Surajmani (supra) which is in rem, but in view of the separate orders passed by the High Court, several special leave petitions are being filed by the State. Considering the same, it is to be expressed that in our view, when a judgment in ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 35 - [2025:HHC:28989] rem has been passed, it would apply mutatis mutandis in all cases having similar facts and filing separate special leave petitions is in futility. The State may take note .
of this fact and do the needful."
12(iii). Since the judgment in case of Surajmani (supra) is a "judgment in rem", which declares the law, covering twin aspects, firstly, the entitlement of daily wagers for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of daily waged service and secondly, what benefits were to accrue viz is, actual or notional, upon the grant of work charge status.
On the first aspect, the entitlement of daily wagers for grant of work charged status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service is inconsonance with the declaration of law, in case of Surajmani, (supra), binds the State Authorities, in all respects.
On the second aspect, regarding the claim or direction for "all consequential benefits"
or "restricted consequential benefits for three years"
is concerned the same is liable to be interfered ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 36 - [2025:HHC:28989] with on various counts. Firstly, directions to grant all consequential benefits or restricted consequential benefits is ex-facie contrary to the law declared by .
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Surajmani (supra) which limits the relief to "notional benefits"
only ; and secondly, the directions to limit relief to "notional benefits" was based on findings recorded in Para 8 of the judgment in case of Surajmani (supra), mandating that the daily wagers who were not regularly appointed or meaning thereby, who were appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme should not be granted extra benefits, which will burden the State Exchequer and it is in this backdrop, that the succor was given to the State, by modifying the orders passed by Learned State Administrative Tribunal, giving "all consequential benefits", which were upheld by the Division Bench of this Court, to "notional benefits" by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ashwani Kumar [Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019, decided on 22.07.2019].
Further, this principle of "notional benefits" stands reinforced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 37 - [2025:HHC:28989] of Surajmani [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, arising from SLP (C) 23016 of 2023, decided on 06.02.2025]; and thirdly, the law declared by the .
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ashwani Kumar and Surajmani (supra), limiting relief to "notional benefits" cannot be tinkered with in any eventuality ; and fourthly, the grant of "all consequential benefits" or "restricted consequential to those r daily to benefits" shall amount to giving leverage or premium wagers who were not regularly appointed or were appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme embodied in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, without there being a sanctioned post, without advertising the post, without inviting applications from eligible candidates and without determining the comparative merit of all eligible candidates in-accordance with the Constitutional Scheme. Financial incentives, be it "all consequential benefits" or "restricted consequential benefits" cannot be extended to those daily wagers who were not regularly appointed or were appointed dehors the established ethos of public employment by a back ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 38 - [2025:HHC:28989] door method. Right to "all consequential benefits or restricted consequential benefits" can only accrue to an incumbent including daily wager who is .
appointed in accordance with the Constitutional Scheme, which has been outlined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 01} and the same stands reaffirmed in case of Surajmani (supra) also; and fifthly, mere filing of petition(s) or its pendency before State Administrative Tribunal or this Court for work charge status, by a daily wager who was not regularly appointed in accordance with the established ethos of public appointment or was appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme will not confer any legally enforceable right on such daily wager for "all consequential benefits" or "restricted consequential benefits" as the case may be ; and lastly, foreseeing the eventuality that some daily wagers were granted the work charge status with "all consequential benefits or restricted consequential benefits" by State Authorities, despite the fact that such daily wagers were not regularly ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 39 - [2025:HHC:28989] appointed or were appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme, therefore, in order to carve out a parity and to obviate the charge of discrimination inter-
.
se such daily wagers, as a class, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has mandated in Para 11 of the judgment in the case of Surajmani (supra) by reserving liberty for the State Authorities to recover excess benefits in installments, from those daily appointed r dehors to wagers who were not regularly appointed or were the Constitutional Scheme, by entitling all such daily wagers for work charge status but by limiting the relief to "notional benefits, in tune with the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Ashwani Kumar (supra), reinforced in Surajmani (supra) and recently reiterated in Janak Dev Sharma (supra).
13. An identical Intra Court Appeal, LPA No. 541 of 2025, State of Himachal Pradesh versus Krishani Devi stands decided by this Court, wherein, the judgement passed by the Learned Single Judge entitling the Respondent-writ petitioner therein for work charge status from the date of completion ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 40 - [2025:HHC:28989] of 8 years of continuous daily wage service was upheld; whereas, the directions regarding "restricted consequential benefits" for three years prior to the .
filing of the petition were set-aside by modifying the relief to "notional benefits".
CONCLUSION:
14. In instant appeal, the Respondent-writ petitioner has not placed on record any material to establish that he was regularly appointed on daily wage basis or such appointment was made in accordance with the established ethos as per the Constitutional Scheme, as discussed above. In these circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to hold that once the Respondent-writ petitioner was not regularly appointed on daily wages in-
accordance with the mandate of public employment embodied in the Constitutional Scheme of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as discussed hereinabove; therefore, the Respondent-writ petitioner herein, shall be entitled for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service and upon grant of work charge ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 41 - [2025:HHC:28989] status, the relief shall be limited to notional benefits, in light of the mandate of Law, declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Ashwani Kumar .
(supra), reinforced in Surajmani (supra) and Janak Dev Sharma (supra).
Based on the above discussion, the Impugned Judgment dated 05.09.2023, entitling the Respondent-writ petitioner(s) herein, for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service is upheld.
However, upon conferment of work charge status, the resultant relief shall be limited to "notional benefits" instead of "restricted consequential benefits for 3 years prior to filing of petition", so as to bring the Impugned Judgment, in tune with the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ashwani Kumar, reinforced in Surajmani and recently reiterated in case of Janak Dev Sharma (supra).
15. No other point was pressed/argued.
DIRECTIONS:
16. In view of the above discussions and for ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 42 - [2025:HHC:28989] reasons stated hereinabove, the instant appeal is partly allowed, in the following terms:-
(i) Instant Appeal, LPA No 82 of 2025, is .
partly allowed;
(ii) Impugned Judgment dated 05.09.2023 passed by Learned Single Judge in CWPOA No 1429 of 2019, Pritam Chand vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, entitling the Respondent-writ petitioner for work-charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service is upheld;
(iii) State Authorities-appellants are directed to grant work-charge status as w.e.f. 01.09.2012 or like due date {whichever is beneficial} as Chowkidar (Class-IV) from date of completion of eight years in the applicable time-pay scale, by counting wage service countable w.e.f. 01.09.2004;
(iv) Directions in Impugned Judgement for releasing "all consequential benefits"
being contrary to judgements in cases of Ashwani Kumar, Surajmani and Janak Dev Sharma (supra) is quashed and set-aside; with modified relief of "notional benefits" from due date but without any past arrears;
(v) State Authorities shall comply the
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS
- 43 - [2025:HHC:28989]
directions contained herein, within
six weeks from receipt of certified / downloaded copy of this judgment;
(vi) Parties to bear their respective costs.
.
In aforesaid terms, the instant Letters Patent Appeal and all the pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.
(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice August 27, 2025.
to (Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
(tm)
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:09 :::CIS