Himachal Pradesh High Court
__________________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. And Others on 4 June, 2025
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
( 2025:HHC:17619) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No: 6676 of 2020 Reserved on: 29.05.2025 Announced on :04.06.2025 __________________________________________________________ Krishan Lal ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? YES For the petitioner: Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Balwinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge Petitioner, Krishan Lal, Revenue Chowkidar in the Respondent-Department, under Respondent No 3, has come up before this Court, seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) That the applicant may be granted the benefit of conversion as daily wager from the year 1998 when he completed ten years in the department.
(ii) That since the applicant completed ten years of service in the year 1998 on daily wager thereafter counting of eight years he is entitled for regularization since 2005 instead of 2015.1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
-2- ( 2025:HHC:17619)
(iii) That the respondents may be directed to pay pension to the applicant since he completed ten years of service in the year 1998, therefore, he is entitled for the said benefit.
(iv) That the respondents may be directed to treat the applicant to have retired at the age of sixty years instead of fifty eight years and to grant him the monetary and consequential benefits in accordance with law.
(v) That the respondents may be directed to grant all the financial, monetary and consequential benefits in view of the above submissions alongwith interest to the applicant."
FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Case as set up by Learned Senior Counsel is that petitioner was appointed Revenue Chowkidar in Revenue Tehsildar, Sunni, by Respondent No. 3 on 08.08.1989 at the rate of Rs.1200/-per year, payable in two equal half-yearly instalments on temporary basis. Petitioner continued in service but since other part-time incumbents appointed in other departments were conferred the daily wage status on completion of requisite service, the petitioner was constrained to file a CWP No 1250 of 2008, Krishan Lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others which was decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 10.11.2010, Annexure A-2, directing the Respondents
-3- ( 2025:HHC:17619) to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of judgment in CWP No 281 of 2007, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Mehar Singh and others, and in case, petitioner was similarly placed then, the Respondents were mandated to extend similar benefit to the petitioner herein, in terms of the Scheme dated 27.02.2004, Annexure P-2, as mentioned in aforesaid order. It is averred that incompliance to judgment dated 10.11.2010, Annexure A-2, in case of petitioner, {Krishan Lal, CWP No. 1250 of 2008], the Respondent No.3 conferred daily wage status to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2004, as per orders issued in February, 2011, Annexure A-3.
Later, as per orders dated 23.11.2015, Annexure A-4, the services of the petitioner were regularized as Chowkidar in the pay band of Rs.4990-10680+1300 GP and other allowances with immediate effect. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2016, Annexure A-5. It is in this background, that the instant petition, has been filed, praying that the petitioner, who has been granted daily wage status w.e.f. 01.01.2004
-4- ( 2025:HHC:17619) in February, 2011 vide Annexure A-3, deserves to be granted daily wage status, on completion of ten years part-time service as Revenue Chowkidar from the year 1999; and secondly, after giving daily wage status the petitioner is entitled to be considered and granted regularization, on completion of eight years of continuous service w.e.f. the year 2007; whereas, the same was accorded as per orders dated 23.11.2015, Annexure A-4, with immediate effect; and thirdly, the petitioner having been engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001, is entitled to be treated to be in deemed service upto the age of sixty years i.e. upto 30.11.2018 and, therefore, the retirement of petitioner at the age of fifty-eight years on 30.11.2016, Annexure A-5, is contrary to Full Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No.2711 of 2017, titled as Baldev versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, and lastly, in view of the claimed re-scheduled daily wage status from 1999 and regular status from 2006-07 and the deemed continuation of service upto the age of sixty years till 30.11.2018, the petitioner is entitled for retiral
-5- ( 2025:HHC:17619) benefits, for the aforesaid service, in the instant petition.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT:
3. Petitioner filed an Original Application No. 1572 of 2019 before Learned State Administrative Tribunal when notices were issued on 29.04.2019 directing Respondents to file reply. Upon abolition of State Administrative Tribunal, the aforesaid OA was transferred to this Court and re-numbered as CWPOA No.6676 of 2020, which on the statement of the then Learned Counsel for petitioner was disposed of as infructuous vide orders dated 20.10.2023. Later, CMP-T No. 353 of 2024 was filed seeking recalling of the orders and this application was allowed by Division Bench of this Court on 13.06.2024.
It is in this background, that the instant petition was taken up by the Division Bench of this Court on various dates. The matter was heard and was re-heard by this Court on 29.05.2025.
STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT:
4. Respondents have filed Reply-Affidavit dated
24.06.2019 of Deputy Commissioner, Shimla.
-6- ( 2025:HHC:17619) 4(i). In Reply-Affidavit, the factual matrix is
that petitioner was appointed as Revenue Chowkidar on 08.08.1989, Annexure A-1, is not in dispute. It is further admitted that petitioner had filed CWP No.1250 of 2008, which was decided by this Court on 10.11.2010, directing the Respondents to look into the grievance of petitioner and take appropriate action in terms of Scheme/Policy dated 27.02.2004, [Annexure P-2 in aforesaid petition]. In compliance to the judgement dated 10.11.2010 in case of the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, the Reply- Affidavit indicated that the petitioner has been given daily wage status in the month of February 2011 w.e.f. 01.01.2004 and the fact that the petitioner stands regularized on 23.11.2015 with immediate effect.
4(ii). Para-4 of Reply-Affidavit states that in a similar case i.e. CWP No. 2494 of 2012 [Pinju Ram and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others], was decided on 20.07.2012, directing the Respondents to give monetary benefits to the Revenue Chowkidar from the date they were given
-7- ( 2025:HHC:17619) retrospective daily waged status w.e.f. 1.1.2007. The State Authorities assailed the judgement dated 20.07.2012 before the Honble Supreme Court which was decided on 22.01.2019, Annexure R-2, upholding the directions passed regarding conversion from part time to daily wage from the date of completion of ten years' service with seniority from such date but without any past financial benefits. The direction passed by this Court [High Court] in the case of Pinju Ram, (supra) in CWP No. 2494 of 2012 on 20.07.2012 for giving the financial benefits from the date of being giving daily waged status was set- aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 22.01.2019, Annexure R-2 [supra]. So far as, the claim of the petitioner for pension is concerned, the Reply- Affidavit stated that CCS [Pension] Rules are not applicable to the incumbents appointed on or after 15.05.2023 and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for pension. In this background, a prayer has been made for dismissing the instant writ petition.
REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER:
5. In rebuttal, by way of Rejoinder, petitioner
-8- ( 2025:HHC:17619) denied the stand of the State Authorities in the Reply-Affidavit, by asserting that the petitioner is eligible and entitled for being converted from part-
time employee to daily waged employee from 8.8.1999 i.e. the date of completion of ten years of part time service as Revenue Chowkidar ; and is thereafter entitled to be considered and granted regularization, on completion of eight years of daily wage service from 2007 whereas, the Respondents have conferred the daily wage status belatedly in February 2011 w.e.f. 01.01.2004 and regularization with immediate effect on 23.11.2015 vide Annexure A-4. In order to support his claim, Learned Senior Counsel has placed on record a copy of the orders dated 22.11.2017 [Taken on Record], whereby, the part-time Revenue Chowkidar in District Mandi, who were converted as daily wagers on competition of 10 years of part time service with seniority and who were regularized during the year 2015 were extended benefit of ante-dated/retrospective regularization w.e.f. 1.1.2012 , which is contented to be from date of completion of eight years on daily wage service as Revenue
-9- ( 2025:HHC:17619) Chowkidars. In Rejoinder, it was asserted that the State Authorities have adopted pick and choose criteria in converting part time to daily wages and also in granting regularization after eight years of daily waged service to the Revenue Chowkidars in District Mandi whereas, this benefit has been denied to the petitioner. The claim of petitioner for continuity in service upto the age of sixty years i.e. 30.11.2018 was reiterated with prayer to set aside the orders dated 30.11.2016, Annexure A-5, retiring the petitioner at age of 58 years. Averments alleging discrimination was reiterated in the rejoinder.
6. Heard, Mr. Romesh Verma, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Digvijay Singh, Learned Counsel, for the petitioner and Mr. Anup Rattan, Learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Balwinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, for the Respondents.
ANALYSIS:
7. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view, that the claim of the petitioner, Krishan Lal, for converting him from part time employee to a
- 10 - ( 2025:HHC:17619) daily wage employee after completion of ten years of part-time service as a Revenue Chowkidar w.e.f. 8.8.1999 ; and thereafter the claim for regularization on completion of eight years of daily wage continuous service from the year 2007 ; and to treat the petitioner to be in service upto the age of sixty years i.e. 30.11.2018, and to give him the benefit of such rescheduled status-service for pay fixation and for retiral benefits w.e.f. 01.12.2018; carries weight and the same deserves to be allowed, for the following reasons:-
7(i). Indisputably, petitioner and thirteen others incumbents were appointed as Revenue Chowkidar on part-time/remuneration basis in Tehsil Sunni by Tehsildar Sunni, District Shimla (HP), after due approval of Respondent No. 3-Deputy Commissioner, Shimla on 8.8.1989 [Annexure A-1]. In compliance to appointment orders, the petitioner joined as Revenue Chowkidar on 08.08.1989. State Government issued a Scheme on 27.2.2004 providing that the Part-
Time Class-IV Employees in all the departments,
except Education and Ayurveda departments who
- 11 - ( 2025:HHC:17619)
have completed 10 years of continuous service as on 31.12.2003 shall be made daily wager from prospective effect. Since this benefit was not extended to category of Revenue Chowkidars as given to other part time Class-IV employees in other departments, a writ petition was filed, i.e. CWP No. 281 of 2007, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and another versus Mehar Singh and others. Likewise, the petitioner filed a CWP No 1250 of 2008 [Krishan Lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh] and the same was decided on 10.11.2010 [Annexure A-2] by relying on the directions passed in the case of Mehar Singh and consequently, by directing the Respondent No. 3-Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, to convert petitioner from Part Time Class-IV employee to daily waged employee from the date of completion of 10 years part time service in terms of Scheme /Policy dated 27.02.2004, [Annexure P-2, as mentioned in aforesaid judgment]. Notably, another writ petition was filed CWP No 2192 of 2011, {In re; Moti Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh} decided on 21.4.2011, by directing to examine the claim and
- 12 - ( 2025:HHC:17619) in case, the claim for conversion from Part Time to Daily Wage on completion of 10 years of part time service was accepted therefore, in such an eventuality, the employee was held not entitled for consequential monetary benefits but the daily waged period was held to be countable for regularization. Based on the decision in case of Moti Ram (supra) State Government issued Instructions on 22.09.2011 mandating that the Revenue Chowkidars who have completed ten years' service of part-time service may be converted as daily wage from the date they complete said service and in such an event, such incumbents shall be entitled for seniority as daily wager from the date of completion of 10 years of part time service but shall not be entitled to any consequential monetary benefits. The Instructions dated 22.09.2011 governing eligibility and entitlement of Part Time Class-IV Revenue Chowkidars for being converted as Daily wage Revenue Chowkidars reads as under:-
"Pursuant to the above directions of the High Court, the State Government in the Department of Revenue issued instructions
- 13 - ( 2025:HHC:17619) on 22 September 2011. The instructions, inter alia, govern Revenue Chowkidars and provided as follows:
"1. That the amount of wages to daily waged Revenue Chowkidars shall be paid from the date they have actually been appointed and working as full-time daily wager in the department.
2. Since the Revenue Chowkidars have worked as part-time prior to their conversion into daily wagers, therefore, they are not entitled to any financial benefit like arrear etc. Attention is also invited to Hon'ble High Court judgment 21.04.2011 passed in a CWP No. 2192 of 2011 titled Moti Singh vs. State and Ors. Where direction has been issued that "in case the petitioner is granted daily waged status retrospectively, he shall not be entitled to any consequential monetary benefit.
3. Seniority to these daily waged Revenue Chowkidars may be granted from the date of completion of 10 years as Part Time workers."
7(ii). The issue as to whether the Part-Time Class-IV Revenue Chowkidars were entitled for being converted as daily waged employees in accordance with the Instructions dated 27.02.2004 and/or the Instructions dated 22.09.2011; and whether such Part Time Revenue Chowkidars were entitled to be converted as daily wagers from the date of completion of after 10 years of part time service and whether,
- 14 - ( 2025:HHC:17619) upon conversion from part time to daily wager incumbents were entitled for the twin benefits of seniority and monetary benefits and/or whether such incumbents were to be given seniority alone but without any financial monetary benefits stands adjudicated on 20.07.2012 by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2494 of 2012 [Pinju Ram and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others], entitling the revenue chowkidars for seniority and monetary benefits from the date of completion of ten years of part-time service w.e.f. 01.01.2007; but this judgment dated 20.07.2012 was taken in appeal by the State Authorities before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 37383- 37385 of 2012 converted as Civil Appeal Nos. 898-900 of 2019, titled as The State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr versus Pinju Ram etc., and these SLPs-Civil Appeal were decided on 22.01.2019, Annexure R-2, mandating that Revenue Chowkidars were to be governed by Instructions dated 22.9.2011 and revenue chowkidar were entitled for conversion from Part Time Class-IV to Daily Wager from the
- 15 - ( 2025:HHC:17619) date of completion of ten years part-time service with benefit of seniority from the date of completion of ten years as part-time workers but without any financial benefits/monetary benefits. While deciding the SLP's-Civil Appeal(s) in case of Pinju Ram [supra], the Hon'ble Supreme Court mandated that though the Instructions dated 27.02.2004 applied to the part time employees in all government departments [except Education and Ayurveda sic 27.04.2004 at page 7 of the judgment in Pinju Ram's case by Hon'ble Supreme Court, supra], but the rights of Revenue Chowkidars, who were held to be employee of Panchayats were to be governed by Instructions dated 22.09.2011, and more so, these Instructions were in consonance with the judgement of this High Court in the case of Moti Singh [supra], entitling the Revenue Chowkidars to be converted from Part Time Class-IV Employees to Daily Waged Employee from the date they complete ten years of part time service with seniority as daily wager from the date of completion of 10 years of daily waged service for regularization but without any consequential
- 16 - ( 2025:HHC:17619) monetary/financial benefits. The operative part of the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP-Civil Appeal in the case of Pinju Ram [supra] reads as under:-
"The initial policy of the State Government dated 27 February 2004 applied to part time Class-IV employees in all departments of the State Government except for Education and Ayurveda. The Policy envisaged that upon the completion of ten years of continuous service as on 31 December 2003, these part time class-IV employees would be conferred daily wage status with prospective effect. In Moti Singh (supra), the High Court specifically held, while directing the consideration of a representation that upon the conferment of daily wage status, the employee would not be entitled to any consequential monetary benefits for the past period, but this would be counted for the purpose of regularization after completion of ten years.
The policy dated 22 September 2011 essentially adopted the principle adopted in Moti Singh (supra) by the High Court. The communication dated 22 September 2011 of the State Government in the Department of Revenue specifically spoke of the conversion of part time revenue chowkidars to daily wage status. Such a policy statement was required since evidently they were not specifically covered by the policy decision of 27 February 2004.
The decision which communicated on 22 September 2011 essentially granted seniority to the revenue chowkidars who were being placed on a daily wage basis. However, the payment of wages would be with effect from the date of the actual appointment and not earlier. In the meantime, there was also a decision by a Division Bench of the
- 17 - ( 2025:HHC:17619) High Court in State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. vs. Meher Singh and Others on 12 April 2007 which adverted to the decision which was taken on 27 April 2004 by the State Government.
Having regard to this background, we are of the view, that once the State Government decided to bring part time revenue chowkidars on a daily wage basis with the added stipulation that while their seniority would count from the completion of ten years, this would be without any past financial benefits, this principle was required to be duly followed.
In the circumstances, the High Court ought not to have issued a direction for the payment of consequential monetary benefits with effect from 1 January 2007. Such a direction in fact was inconsistent with the observations of the High Court itself in Moti Singh (supra) which was decided on 21 April 2011.
The direction contained in the impugned order for the payment of monetary benefits with effect from 1 January 2007 shall stand set aside. We clarify that the State Government shall abide by the stipulations which are contained in the communication dated 22 September 2011 (Annexure P-5) issued by the Principal Secretary, Revenue in the Department of Revenue which have been noted in the earlier part of this judgment.
We, however, clarify that the seniority of the part time chowkidars who are granted daily wage status will be counted from the date of completion of ten years as part time chowkidars though without any financial benefits for the past.
For the above reasons, we are of the view that the present appeals should be allowed. They are accordingly allowed."
- 18 - ( 2025:HHC:17619) Based on the above factual and legal matrix, the claim of the petitioner deserves to be accepted. Petitioner who was engaged as Revenue Chowkidar on part-time basis on 08.08.1989 is entitled for being converted/granted daily wage status as per the directions of this Court in the case of Moti Singh {CWP No 2192 of 2011}. Based on the order passed in the case of Moti Singh (supra), the State Authorities issued the Instructions dated 22.9.2011 governing the claim of the Revenue Chowkidars for conversion from Part Time Class-IV to Daily Wager from the date of completion of 10 years of part time service with benefit of seniority as daily wager for regularization from date of completion of 10 years of part time service but without any financial /monetary benefits. Even as per the mandate of the Honble Supreme Court dated 22.1.2019 in SLP No 37383-37385 of 2012, converted as Civil Appeal No 898-800 of 2019} in the case of Pinju Ram [supra], the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of conversion from part-time to daily wager from the date of completion of ten years of part-time
- 19 - ( 2025:HHC:17619) service with seniority for purposes of regularization from such seniority as daily wager but without any consequential monetary benefits. 7(iii). As a sequel to the discussion made hereinabove, once the Respondents-State Authorities have granted daily wage status to the petitioner in February, 2011 w.e.f. 01.01.2004, Annexure A-3, then, the aforesaid daily wage status is infact to be re-carved/re-scheduled in favour of the petitioner from the date of completion of ten years of part- time service countable from 08.08.1989 by extending daily waged to the petitioner w.e.f. 8.8.1999 on notional basis but without financial-monetary benefits in terms of the Instructions dated 22.9.2011 and the mandate of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Pinju Ram {supra} in the instant case. Resultantly, after converting the petitioner as daily wager, petitioner is entitled for daily wage seniority from 8.8.1999 and based on such seniority, the petitioner has a fundamental right to be considered for extending benefit of regularization w.e.f. 8.8.2007 or such due date from the date of completion of
- 20 - ( 2025:HHC:17619) eight years of daily waged service in terms of the regularization Policy dated 9.6.2008 [Taken on Record], instead of regularizing him after 17 years on 23.11.2015 [Annexure A-4] in applicable pay case. Upon re-carving of rights as daily wager and then on regularization the petitioner is entitled for deemed seniority as daily wager from 8.8.1999 and resultant benefit of regularization from the date of completion of eight years of daily waged service w.e.f. 8.8.2007 or such due date in terms of regularization policies dated 9.6.2008 [whichever is beneficial] with pay fixation during service and all other attendant service benefits accruing to the petitioner. 7(vi). Case of the petitioner needs to be examined from another angle also. Respondent No. 3 granted daily wage status to the petitioner in February 2011 w.e.f. 01.01.2004, Annexure A-3 and was granted regularization with immediate effect on 23.11.2015 [Annexure A-4]. In contrast to this, reference is made to the orders dated 22.2.2017 {Taken on record} issued by Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, whereby, part time revenue chowkidars, after being converted
- 21 - ( 2025:HHC:17619) as daily wagers, who were actually regularized as such between January to July, 2015, were accorded benefit of retrospective regularization from the date of completion of eight years of continuous daily waged service w.e.f. 01.01.2012. In these circumstances, once similarly placed Revenue Chowkidars in District Mandi were granted benefit of antedated/retrospective regularization on 22.02.2017, therefore, the petitioner being similarly placed cannot be singled out, discriminated and denied daily wage status from date of completion of ten years of part-time service w.e.f. 8.8.1999 and the regularization from the date of completion of eight years of continuous daily wage service w.e.f. 8.8.2007 or such due date by resorting to consideration and retrospective regularization in terms of policy dated 09.06.2008 or applicable policy [whichever is beneficial]. Action of the State Authorities in applying different yardsticks for according daily waged status and regularization within one homogeneous class of Revenue Chowkidars serving in different districts [Shimla vis-à-vis Mandi Districts] ex-facie reveals discrimination, amounts
- 22 - ( 2025:HHC:17619) to treating 'equals to unequal', which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, resulting in putting petitioner to a disadvantageous position, by depriving him of higher status as daily wage status from 8.8.1999 [whereas it was given from 1.1.2004] and regularization after completion of 8 years continuous daily waged service w.e.f. 8.8.2007 or such like due date [whereas it was given with immediate effect on 23.11.2015 vide Annexure A-4]. Different criteria and different yardsticks cannot be permitted to operate amongst one homogenous class of revenue chowkidars in a state, so as to accord daily waged status and thereafter for regularization, flowing from the Instructions dated 22.9.2011 and the mandate of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Pinju Ram {supra} alike the petitioner, so as to deprive the petitioner of the higher status and higher pay fixation during service and other attendant benefits flowing therefrom. 7(v). State Authorities retired the petitioner at age of 58 years on 30.11.2016, Annexure A-5. Since the petitioner was engaged as a Part-Time Revenue
- 23 - ( 2025:HHC:17619) Chowkidar prior to 10.05.2001 [on 08.08.1989 in instant case], therefore, in terms of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No.2711 of 2017, titled as Baldev versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others [supra], the petitioner having been engaged on part-time basis prior to 10.05.2001 is entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years. The service beyond 58 years upto 60 years of age is to be treated as deemed service for retiral benefits. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for benefits of deemed service upto age of 60 years i.e. upto 30.11.2018 with benefit of such service for pension/retiral benefits. Consequently, Impugned Order dated 30.11.2016 [Annexure-5] at age of 58 years, being contrary to mandate of law, in case of Baldev [supra], is quashed and set-aside. 7(vi). Based on the discussion, in preceding paras, the petitioner is held entitled for daily wage status w.e.f. 8.8.1999 [from date of completion of ten years of part-time service countable from 8.8.1989] and is further held entitled for regularization w.e.f. 8.8.2007 or such due date [whichever is beneficial]
- 24 - ( 2025:HHC:17619) on completion of eight years of daily wage service [countable on basis of the daily wage service from 8.8.1989 onwards]; and is also held entitled for deemed continuation as regular incumbent till the age of sixty years upto 30.11.2018 for purposes of pension and other retiral benefits, which shall accrue to the petitioner upon recasting-rescheduling of benefits as daily wager and regularization. Denial of consideration and ante-dated regularization when, nothing has been pointed out by State Authorities in the Reply Affidavit that the work, conduct and performance of the petitioner as daily wager was not satisfactory or that the petitioner was not fit or was not eligible for being considered for regularization from the date of completion of 8 years daily waged service {from 8.8.2007 or such due date}. Further once the State Authorities have re-scheduled regularization from the year 2015 to the year 2012 in case of other similar revenue chowkidars in District Mandi and that too by extending ante-dated benefits on the same post, on which they stood initially regularized and
- 25 - ( 2025:HHC:17619) in these circumstances, this Court sees no reason as to why the petitioner be not held entitled for consideration and resultant regularization as granted to other similarly placed incumbents, so as to ensure parity in service and to avoid the charge of discrimination. Treating equals as unequal reveals ex-facie non-application of mind, arbitrariness and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
7(vii). Now coming to the claim for pension and other retiral benefits, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years on 30.11.2016, Annexure P-5 but in terms of the mandate of law in the case of Baldev [supra], petitioner is entitled for deemed continuation in service upto the age of 60 years upto 30.11.2018. Based on the above discussion, once the petitioner is held entitled for conversion from Part Time Revenue Chowkidar Class-IV to daily wager from date of completion of 10 years of part time service w.e.f 8.8.1999 and then to be considered for regularization in regular pay scale from the date
- 26 - ( 2025:HHC:17619) of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service w.e.f. 8.8.2007 {instead of giving daily waged status in Feb 2011 from 1.1.2004 and regularization on 23.11.2015} and also by taking into account deemed date of superannuation on 30.11.2018 once, the qualifying service shall work out to be more than 11 years and 3 months vis-à-vis requirement of 10 years qualifying service therefore, the petitioner would become eligible and entitled for pension and other retiral benefits in accordance with the CCS (Pension) Rules in the normal course from 1.12.2018 with all attendant service benefits. 7(viii) Though the petitioner had claimed larger relief of regularization from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service yet the Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that the lesser relief of conferring work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of daily wage service [w.e.f. 8.8.2007] deserves to be accorded to the petitioner, even if regularization was granted after about 17 years of daily waged service on 23.11.2015, [Annexure A-4]. However, on query by
- 27 - ( 2025:HHC:17619) this Court, Learned State Counsel has refuted this claim/contention with the submission that the Revenue Department in which the petitioner was initially appointed as Part Time Revenue Chowkidar and was accorded Daily Wage Status and was thereafter regularized, does not have work charge establishment and therefore, the claim for work charge status may not be acceded to.
The objection raised by the Learned State Counsel so as to deny the work charge status to the petitioner is no longer re-integra in view of the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, titled as The State of Himachal Pradesh versus Surajmani & Anr., decided on 06.02.2025, whereby, the work charge status was directed to be accorded to the daily wagers working in all Government departments from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service, in terms of the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., 1994 Supp(2) SCC 316; and the mandate of the High
- 28 - ( 2025:HHC:17619) Court in Rakesh Kumar [CWP No.2735 of 2010] against which SLP was also dismissed; and further by relying upon the judgement in CWP No. 3111 of 2016 State of Himachal Pradesh versus Ashwani Kumar which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 27.09.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Ashwani Kumar, affirming the entitlement of daily wages for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of daily wage service in the following terms:
3. The short point that arises for out consideration in these appeals is "whether a daily wager is liable to be conferred 'work charged status' after completion of eight years of service" or, in other words, "whether the benefit of 'work charged status' could be given to a work-charged employee after completion of eight years of service".
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 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 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
- 29 - ( 2025:HHC:17619) 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.
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 with no order as to costs.
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].
In view of above discussion and in terms of the law declared by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Raj Upadhayay and Ashwini Kumar, which recently stands reaffirmed in the case of Surajmani [supra], once for conferring the work charge status to daily wagers working in
- 30 - ( 2025:HHC:17619) all government departments in State of Himachal Pradesh there is neither any requirement of a post nor any work charge cadre-establishment is necessary, therefore, this Court finds merit in the claim of Learned Senior Counsel and accordingly, the petitioner is held entitled for conferment of work charge status in applicable pay scale from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service w.e.f. 8.8.2007 on notional basis in terms of the judgement in case of Surajmani (supra) and to count work charge service for retiral benefits in terms of the judgement(s) in the case of Sukru Ram and Matwar Singh (infra) for pension and other retiral benefits.
7(ix). Pension is not a bounty payable by an employer. It is a legal entitlement accruing to an employee for past-service rendered, so as to eke out a living in the December of his life after superannuation. Right to pension and other retiral benefits constitute property within the ambit of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Action of the State Authorities in depriving the petitioner
- 31 - ( 2025:HHC:17619) of property can only be in accordance with law. Respondents-State Authorities have not placed on record any material to indicate that the petitioner is not eligible for being considered for antedated regularization and the resultant pension and other retiral benefits from 1.11.2018 after rescheduling /recasting of his rights as daily wager from 8.8.1999 from the date of completion of 10 years of service as Part Time Class-IV Revenue Chowkidar {instead of giving this benefit from Feb 2011 given w.e.f. 1.1.12004, Annexure A-3} in terms of the mandate of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Pinju Ram (supra) and to consider and extend benefit of work charge status or regularization from 8.8.2007 or such like due date from date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service as per the applicable policies dated 9.9.2008 {instead of giving benefit prospectively on 23.11.2015, Annexure A-5), and to extend the benefit of recasted daily waged service notionally and to further grant work charge status or regularization for pay fixation during service and all attendant benefits, including retiral
- 32 - ( 2025:HHC:17619) benefits from 1.11.2018 in terms of the discussion made hereinabove.
CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS:
8. In view of the above discussion and for reasons recorded hereinabove, instant writ petition, is allowed, in the following terms:-
(i) State Authorities-Respondents are mandated to grant daily wage status to the petitioner from the date of completion of ten years of part-time service [countable from 08.08.1989] w.e.f. 08.08.1999 with seniority but without monetary benefits in terms of the mandate of law, in the case of Pinju Ram, Annexure R-2 [supra]
(ii) Upon conversion of the petitioner as a daily wage employee, the State Authorities- Respondents are mandated to consider and grant regularization to the petitioner as Revenue Chowkidar in pay scale of Rs. 4990-10680+1300 GP and revised rates thereof; from the date of completion of eight years of continuous daily wage service w.e.f.
08.08.2007 or such like due date in accordance with regularization policies including the policy dated 9.6.2008 {instead of regularizing on 23.11.2015, vide Annexure A-5}; with pay-fixation
- 33 - ( 2025:HHC:17619) and other service benefits accruing therefrom;
(iii) Upon recasting of regularization, as in (ii) above; since qualifying service of the petitioner comes to more than 11 years vis-à-vis requisite 10 years of qualifying service; then, petitioner is held eligible and entitled for pension w.e.f. 1.11.2018 and other retiral benefits in accordance with the CCS [Pension] Rules ;
(iv). In the alternative; State Authorities-
Respondents are directed to accord work charge status to the petitioner as Revenue Chowkidar from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service w.e.f. 8.8.2007 on notional basis in terms of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surajmani [supra] and thereafter to count the said work charge service for giving pension and other retiral benefits as per the judgment of this Court in Sukru Ram Vs. The State of H.P. and others [CWP No.6167 of 2012] decided on 06.03.2012 and in State of Himachal Pradesh & Others Versus Sh. Matwar Singh & Another [CWP No.2384 of 2018] decided on 18.12.2018, with all consequential benefits; and
(v). State Authorities are directed to extend
- 34 - ( 2025:HHC:17619) benefits as per directions (i) to (iv) to the petitioner with all consequential benefits on or before 31st July, 2025;
(vi). Failure to extend benefits shall mandated the Respondents to release all service benefits in terms of this judgment along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, beyond 31.07.2025 till realization;
(vii). Parties to bear their own costs. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition is allowed and pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 4th June, 2025 [Bhardwaj/tm]