Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others vs Layak Ram on 27 August, 2025
( 2025:HHC:28990 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.100 of 2025 Reserved on: 14.08.2025 Announced on:27.08.2025 __________________________________________________________ .
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Appellants Versus Layak Ram .... 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: Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General.
For the respondent: Mr. Rahul Chauhan, Advocate, Ranjan Sharma, Judge State Authorities, being the appellants, have come up before this Court, assailing the Judgment dated 29.09.2023 [referred to as Impugned Judgment] passed by Learned Single Judge in CWPOA No. 4331 of 2020, In re: Layak Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby, the rejection orders dated 29.03.2016, [Annexure A-5] was quashed and set-aside ; and Appellants-State Authorities were to grant work charged status to the Respondent-writ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
-2- ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) petitioner [Layak Ram], w.e.f. 01.01.2004 from the date of completion of 8 years continuous daily waged service countable from 01.01.1996, with monetary .
benefits for three years prior to filing of the petition.
FACTUAL MATRIX BEFORE WRIT COURT:
2. Respondent-writ petitioner, Layak Ram, filed CWPOA No 4331 of 2020, with the following relief(s) :-
"7(i). That the impugned rejection orders dated 29.03.2016, (Annexure A-5), may be quashed and set-aside.
7(ii). That the respondent department may r be directed to regularize the services of the applicant w.e.f. 01.01.2004 i.e. on completion of 8 years of continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year with all consequential benefits such as arrears of pay, seniority, promotion and other allied service benefits...".
2(i). In CWPOA No. 4331 of 2020, the Respondent
-writ petitioner had set up a case that he was engaged as a casual labourer under the Range Forest Officer, Arki, in Forest Division, Kunihaar during the year 1996 and had completed 256 days in the said year. It is averred that as per the Mandays Chart, Annexure R-1, the writ petitioner had served for 339 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
-3- ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) days in 1997; 308 days in 1998; 317 days in 1999; 273½ days in 2000; 219½ days in 2001; 195 days in 2002; 323 days in 2003; 280 days in 2004;
.
298 days in 2005; 254 days in 2006; 297 days in 2007; 319 days in 2008; 364 days in 2009. He filed a CWP (T) No 8147 of 2008 for condoning the shortfall of 240 days during the year 2001 and 2002 and after the decision dated 02.06.2009, the shortfall was condoned and the writ petitioner was regularized as Mali on 22.10.2010 w.e.f. 18.02.2010, Annexure R-II). After regularization, the writ petitioner filed another CWP No 8496 of 2010, titled as Layak Ram versus State of HP, claiming the work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service in the light of the judgment dated 28.07.2010 passed by this Court in CWP No 2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar versus State of HP and this CWP No 8496 of 2010, was disposed of on 06.01.2011 and the claim for work charge status was rejected by the State Authorities in terms of the decision dated 24.09.2015 [Annexure R-III with Reply-Affidavit] that the Forest ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
-4- ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) Department is not a work charge establishment and in view of this, the case was rejected on 29.03.2016 [Annexure R-IV] and this rejection was assailed before .
the writ court.
2(ii). In reply, before writ court, the Appellants-
State Authorities admitted the factual matrix stating, that writ petitioner worked continuously with 240 days in each calendar year from 1996 and having rendered more than 14 years of daily waged services he was regularized as Mali [Class-IV] as per orders dated 22.02.2010 w.e.f. 01.09.2007 [Annexure R-II] as per joint state seniority and vacancy position and the regularization policy notified by Government of Himachal Pradesh. Reply-Affidavit stated that the case of petitioner is neither covered for regularization nor for grant of work-charged status yet in earlier round of litigation in CWP No.8496 of 2010, titled as Layak Ram vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others and the orders dated 06.01.2011 passed therein, the matter was examined in light of the judgment in CWP No 2735 of 2010, Rakesh Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others along ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
-5- ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) with connected matters, decided on 28.07.2010, but since this judgement was stayed in SLP (C) No. 8830-8860 of 2011 therefore, no action was .
taken till the said SLP was ultimately dismissed on 15.01.2015. After the decision of the SLP, the State Authorities, Additional Chief Secretary [Forests] constituted a committee to examine as to whether the Forest Department has work-charge establishment or not. Based on recommendations of the Committee the State Authorities took a decision on 24.09.2015 [Annexure R-III] that the Forest Department is not a work charge establishment and by relying on this decision, the claim for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years continuous daily wage service was rejected on 29.03.2016 [Annexure R-IV].
In this background that the claim of the Respondent
-writ petitioner for work charge status was denied by the State Authorities.
In Rejoinder, the writ petitioner reiterated the claim quashing the rejection orders with the prayer to grant the benefit of work charge status and/or regularization from the date of completion of 8 years ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
-6- ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) of continuous daily waged service from due date till retirement on 31.05.2020 with all service benefits.
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 24.09.2023 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE:
.
3. Taking into account the material on record, Learned Single Judge passed the Impugned Judgment on 29.09.2023, entitling the Respondent-writ petitioner for work-charged status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service [from 01.01.2004] and by giving the restricted consequential monetary benefits for 3 years prior to filing the writ petition, in the following terms:-
"8. Accordingly, in view of the above observations, this petition is allowed.
Annexure A-5 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to confer work charge status upon the petitioner upon completion of eight years of service as a daily wager with 240 days in each calendar year. The monetary benefits as a result thereof are restricted to three years prior to the filing of the petition...."
CHALLENGE TO IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IN INSTANT APPEAL:
4. In instant Intra-Court Appeal, the State Authorities have assailed the Impugned Judgment ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
-7- ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) dated 29.09.2023, on the grounds, firstly, that the Learned Single Judge had ignored 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, which was the subject matter in LPA No.165 of 2021, State of Himachal Pradesh & Others versus Surajmani and another has not attained finality as the decision has been assailed by the State Authorities before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 23016 of 2023, In re:
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others vs Surajmani and another which was pending ; and thirdly, in terms of the Government decision dated 24.09.2015, [Annexure R-III], the Appellant [Forest Department] did not have a work-charged establishment and therefore, impugned judgment granting work-charged status was erroneous; and fourthly, grant of work charge status was contrary to the judgment in the 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 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
-8- ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316 and .
the judgment in Rakesh Kumar vs State of HP & Others [CWP No. 2735 of 2010] and sixthly, it suffers from delay and laches lastly, Impugned Judgment granting restricted monetary benefits for 3 years prior to filing of writ petitioner, upon grant of work charged of Law, r in State to status, was erroneous, being contrary to the mandate of Himachal Pradesh versus Surajmani and other connected matters [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025 decided on 06.02.2025].
5. Heard, Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Learned Deputy Advocate General for appellants-State. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 03.10.2024, in the instant proceedings, Mr. Rahul Chauhan, Advocate appeared vice Mr. Rajender Sharma, Advocate and filed reply to application for delay. After condoning the delay, the instant appeal was finally heard by this Court.
MATTER IN ISSUE COVERED BY JUDGMENT IN SURAJMANI [CIVIL APPEAL No. 1595 OF 2025] DECIDED ON 06.02.2025:
6. Though the issue involved in the instant ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
-9- ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) 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.
7. r ANALYSIS OF to GROUNDS CONTENTIONS RAISED:
First contention of Learned State Counsel IN LPA AND for the appellants is that the Impugned Judgment dated 29.09.2023 passed by Learned Single Judge by ignoring the pleadings is liable to be set- aside.
The above contention is misconceived, for the reason, that the Impugned Judgment takes into account the pleadings, which reveals the factual matrix that though he was engaged as a daily wager in 1996 and was regularized after more than 14 years on 22.10.2010, yet, he has a right to be granted work charged status from the date of completion of 8 years of daily waged service, in light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 10 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) in State of Himachal Pradesh versus Gehar Singh (2007) 12 SCC 43 and the judgement in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar versus State .
of Himachal Pradesh and others along with connected matters; and was reiterated in CWP No. 3111 of 2016, State of Himachal Pradesh versus Ashwani Kumar, mandating that for conferment of work charge status, the work charge establishment was not a pre-requisite nor conversion of work charged employees would make existence of such establishment non-existent. The conferment of work charge status was reiterated by this Court in LPA No.165 of 2021, State of Himachal Pradesh versus Surajmani and another. Based on this, the Learned Single Judge directed the State Authorities to grant work-charged status to the Respondent-writ petitioner from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily-
wage service w.e.f 01.01.2004. In these circumstances, Impugned Judgment passed after taking into account the material on record and after appreciating the factual and legal matrix, does not warrant any interference, in instant proceedings.
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS - 11 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 )
8. Second contention of the Learned State
Counsel is that the issue regarding conferment of work-charged status from the date of 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 the State Authorities had filed SLP(C) No. 23016 of 2023, which is pending before the Honble Supreme Court.
Though on the face value, this contention appears to be attractive but events subsequent to filing of instant appeal indicates that this contention does not holds good any more. The present Letters Patent Appeal was filed along with an application for condonation of delay on 23.08.2024 and the matter was listed on 05.12.2024, notice was issued to non-applicant/respondent-writ petitioner and upon appearance by Learned Counsel and after hearing delay was condoned on 18.03.2025 and accordingly, the LPA was finally taken up for adjudication at his stage. However, on query by this Court, Learned State Counsel informs that the SLP (C) No.23016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 12 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) of 2023 [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025], In re:
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr vs Surajmani and other connected cases, stands decided by the .
Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.02.2025, entitling the daily wagers for work charged status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service. Since, the SLP in case of Surajmani [supra] stands decided, therefore, the Impugned Judgment dated 29.09.2023, directing the appellants to confer work-charge status to the Respondent-writ petitioner herein from the date of completion of 8 years of daily wage service [w.e.f. 01.01.2004], does not suffer from any infirmity or 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 various departments throughout the State {including ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 13 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) the Appellant-Forest Department} CONCEPT OF WORK CHARGE STATUS IN STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH:
9(i). Notably, in the 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 the betterment of skilled and unskilled daily wage/muster-roll workers in all government departments" by putting them in the time scale of pay as applicable to corresponding lowest grade in the government. Upon grant of time scale, these daily wagers were termed as "work charge employees."
The aforesaid scheme was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs State of Himachal Pradesh (1994) Supp (2) SCC 316, mandating that daily wage/muster-roll workers were to be appointed as work charged employees, in the time scale of pay applicable to corresponding lowest grade in the government from the date they complete the 10 years continuous daily wage service.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 14 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) Later on, the State Authorities notified a policy on 03.04.2000 for conferring work charge status to the daily wagers on completion of 8 years of continuous .
service as on 31.3.2000 and this policy remained in vogue till issuance of another policy on 09.06.2004.
In backdrop of these policies, the issue as to which of the daily wagers would be governed by the policy of 03.04.2000 was adjudicated by the Division Others vs r State to Bench of this Court in the case of Gauri Dutt & of HP, Latest HLJ 2008 [HP] 366, mandating that those daily wagers who had completed one year of continuous service with {240 days service} during the year 1993 or prior to 31.12.1993 would be granted work charged status from the date they complete 10 years of continuous service in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra) whereas, those daily wagers who were engaged /appointed on or after 01.01.1994 and had rendered continuous service thereafter were to be governed by 8 years policy by granting work-charge status from the date they complete 8 years of continuous daily ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 15 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) wage service.
LAW OF THIS COURT ON CONCEPT OF WORK CHARGE STATUS IS ALSO PARI-MATERIA TO DECISION IN SURAJMANI:
9(ii). In plethora of judgments, the daily wagers .
have been held entitled for work charge status, in time scale of pay as is admissible to corresponding category of employees on completion of requisite 8 years of daily waged service irrespective of the fact as to whether work charge establishment exists or not in the case of Pritam Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh, CWPOA No.7497of 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, in all Departments, irrespective of the fact that Department is/was ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 16 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) having work-charged establishment or not.
22. In Gauri Dutt's case, it has been held that the scheme formulated in Mool Raj Upadhayaya 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 Upadhayay'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 (C) No. 8830-8869 of 2011 preferred by the State in Rakesh ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 17 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) 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 regularization for want of creation of post by Government ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 18 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) 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 Ram vs. State of HP and others; CWPOA No.6468 of ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 19 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) 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 stablishment.
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 case.
29. For conferment of work-charged ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 20 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) 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."
9(iii). Even, the issue regarding conferment of work charge status to daily wagers on completion of 8 years continuous service stands adjudicated by this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar [CWP No. of 2010, against which SLP (C) No. 8830-8869 of 2011 on 15.01.2015] was also dismissed. After dismissal of SLP, State Authorities took a decision on 24.09.2015, [Annexure R-III, in writ proceedings] that the Forest Department does not have a work charge establishment and this decision cannot be made the basis to negate the right of Respondent
-writ petitioner for work charge status, which has accrued in terms of the judgement/mandate of law in the case of Mool Raj Upadhayaya, Gehar Singh, Gauri Dutt and Rakesh Kumar (supra) and the affidavit/undertaking to implement the scheme for betterment of daily wagers of all the departments, ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 21 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) by granting them better pay, in time scale of pay as was given to corresponding category of regular employees and by terming such daily wagers as .
work charged employees. Even, the decision dated 24.09.2015 cannot operate retrospectively so as take away the right for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous service in favour of respondent-writ petitioner. The matter regarding grant of work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of daily wage service came up before the Division Bench of this Court, in CWP No. 3111 of 2016, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs Ashwani Kumar whereby, for conferment of work charge status there was neither the need for work charge establishment nor its cessation or abolition would make any difference and even there was no requirement for creation or availability of a post for conferment of such work charge status.
Feeling aggrieved, the State Authorities assailed the judgement passed by the Division Bench of this Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh versus Ashwani ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 22 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) Kumar, [Civil Appeal No 5753 of 2019, decided on 22.07.2019], and while deciding the Civil Appeal, 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 entitling the daily wagers for work charge status with "notional benefits" only. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reinforced the directions in case of Ashwani Kumar [supra], in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh versus Surajmani [supra], [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, SLP (C) 23016 of 2023, arising from LPA No. 165 of 2021, decided on 06.02.2025], entitling the daily wagers for work charge status with notional benefits only.
In above backdrop and in the light of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Mool Raj Upadhyaya, Gehar Singh, Ashwani Kumar and Surajmani [supra] and the judgments of this Court in the case of Gauri Dutt, Rakesh Kumar and in the case of Pritam Singh {CWPOA No 7497 of 2020, decided on 29.7.2024}; the contention ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 23 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) of Learned State Counsel that Appellant-Department {Forest Department} does not have a work-charge establishment cannot sustain and the right and .
entitlement of the Respondent-writ petitioner and other similar daily wagers/muster-roll workers serving in all government departments for work charged status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service cannot be permitted to be abridged, curtailed, restricted or taken away in any manner and to any extent, by the State Authorities. Accordingly, 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 service being in conformity with the mandate of law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra), which stands reinforced in the case of Surajmani (supra), which is a judgement in rem, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference in the instant proceedings.
10. Fourth contention of Learned State Counsel ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 24 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) is that the Impugned judgement granting the work charge status is erroneous, being contrary to the judgment in the case of Jaswant Singh and others .
vs Union of India and Others, (1979) 4 SCC
440. The above contention is misconceived for the reason, that the judgment in the case of Jaswant Singh is distinguishable on facts. Even a perusal of Paras 2 and 3 of case of Jaswant Singh [supra] indicates that entire r the judgment in 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 set up by the appellants ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 25 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) on the basis of Jaswant Singh's case is devoid of any merit and is turned down, in facts of instant matter. Accordingly, the Impugned judgment .
directing the State Authorities to grant work charge status to the Respondent-Writ petitioner from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service [w.e.f. 01.01.2004], notwithstanding his regularization from a subsequent date [in 2010], does not call for any interference, and does not suffer from any perversity or infirmity being in tune with the mandate of law as referred to above.
11. Fifth contention of Learned State Counsel is that the case of the Respondent-writ petitioner [Layak Ram] is neither covered by the judgment in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya nor the judgment in case of Rakesh Kumar and therefore, Impugned Judgment dated 29.09.2023, directing to grant work charge status is unsustainable.
The above contention is misconceived, in view of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Surajmani [Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025] has mandated that the judgment in the ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 26 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya still holds the field and this dictum was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra) entitling .
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 judgment in the case of r to 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 (Appointment) Regularization of Muster- Roll/Daily-Wagers in Himachal Pradesh 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 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 27 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) 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-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 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."
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS- 28 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 )
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 C WP No. 2735 of 2010 titled as Rakesh 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 r 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 onthe 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 petitioners herein for ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 29 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) 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 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 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 30 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) 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 be granted as the petition was initially filed in the year 2013.
r 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, ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 31 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) 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 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 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 32 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) (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 r accordingly with no order as to costs."
12. Sixth contention of Learned State Counsel is that Learned Single Judge had allowed the petition by ignoring the principle of delay and laches.
The plea of delay and latches is totally misconceived in view of the fact the claim of the Respondent-writ petitioner was rejection order on 29.03.2016 [Annexure P-2/R-IV] and the petition was filed in April 2018. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court has mandated in Para 12 of judgement in case of Surajmani (supra) would necessarily be a judgement in rem, in the following terms :-
12. It is further underscored that this judgment would necessarily be a ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 33 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) 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].
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, reiterating that the judgment in case of Surajmani (supra), is a judgment in rem with 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 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 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 34 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) this fact and do the needful."
12(i). Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra) has outlined that benefit of work charged status from the date of completion .
of 8 years daily waged continuous service has to be extended to all daily wagers without resorting to pick and choose policy, in the following terms:
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 submit that the said application was withdrawn on the ground of subsequent schemes having been formulated and implemented by the ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 35 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) 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.
DECLARATION OF LAW BASED ON JUDGEMENT IN REM IS BINDING:
12(ii). In above backdrop, once the judgement in the case of Surajmani [supra] is a judgement in rem, declaring the law, entitling the daily wagers including the appellant-writ petitioner for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged continuous service is binding on State Authorities including this Court. The benefits flowing from judgement in rem cannot be negated or defeated by invoking the plea of delay and laches, when, the State Authorities have granted the work charge status to many other similarly placed persons ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 36 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) in various government departments including the appellant department. The appellants-State Authorities cannot be permitted to adopt a without pick and .
choose policy. Conferment of work charge status has to be granted uniformly to all concerned so as to ensure parity and to avoid charge of discrimination so as to give effect to the judgement in rem, without insisting for or without invoking the plea of delay and laches, in the light of the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of U.P versus Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, in the following terms:-
22.1. Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit.
Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 37 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.
22.2. However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as .
acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons r be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India (1997) 6 SCC
721."
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS- 38 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) Negating the plea of delay and laches, the benefit of the judgement in rem was extended to all similarly placed incumbents, by the Three Judge .
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman/ Managing Director Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and Others versus Ram Gopal, (2021) 13 SCC 225, as under:-
13. We may hasten to add that these principles may not, however, apply to judgments which are delivered in rem. The State and its instrumentalities are expected r in such category of cases to themselves extend the benefit of a judicial pronouncement to all similarly placed employees without forcing each person to individually knock the doors of courts. This distinction between operation of delay and laches to judgments delivered in rem and in personam, is lucidly captured in State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, ......"
Once a principle of law stands declared by mandating the judgement to be judgement in rem, then, all similarly placed persons are entitled for same benefits without forcing them to come to Courts, as outlined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel versus Union ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 39 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) of India, Civil Appeal No 1943 of 2022, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3664, in the following terms:-
14. It is a well settled principle of law that where a citizen aggrieved by an action of the .
government department has approached the court and obtained a declaration of law in his/her favour, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to go to court. [See Amrit Lal Berry vs. Collector of Central Excise New Delhi and Others, (1975) 4 SCC 714].
15. In K. I. Shephard and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (1987) 4 r SCC 431, this Court while reinforcing the above principle held as under:
19. The writ petitions and the appeals must succeed. We set aside the impugned judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and direct that each of the three transferee banks should take over the excluded employees on the same terms conditions of employment under the respective banking companies prior to amalgamation.
The employees would be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service for all purposes including salary and perks throughout the period. We leave it open to the transferee banks to take such action as they consider proper against these employees in accordance with law. Some of the excluded employees have not come to court. There is no justification to penalise them for not having litigated. They too shall be entitled to the same benefits as the petitioners....
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS - 40 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 )
16. No doubt, in exceptional cases
where the court has expressly prohibited the extension of the benefit to those who have not approached the court till then or in cases where a grievance .
in personam is redressed, the matter may acquire a different dimension, and the department may be justified in denying the relief to an individual who claims the extension of the benefit of the said judgment.
18. The respondent authorities on their own should have extended the benefit of the judgment of AFT, Principal Bench in OA No.111 of 2013 and r batch to the appellant. To illustrate, take the case of the valiant Indian soldiers bravely guarding the frontiers at Siachen or in other difficult terrain. Thoughts on conditions of service and job perquisites will be last in their mind. Will it be fair to tell them that they will not be given relief even if they are similarly situated, since the judgment they seek to rely on, was passed in the case of certain applicants alone who moved the court ? We think that would be a very unfair scenario. Accepting the stand of the respondents in this case would result in this Court putting its imprimatur on an unreasonable stand adopted by the authorities.
23. We hold that the appellant was wrongly excluded from consideration when ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 41 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) other similarly situated officers were considered and granted permanent commission. Today, eleven years have elapsed. It will not be fair to subject her to the rigors of the 2013 parameters .
as she is now nearly 45 years of age. There has been no fault on the part of the appellant."
CLAIM INVOLVING HIGHER PAY FIXATION AND HIGHER PENSION IS RECURRING AND CONTINUNG CAUSE:
12(iii). Contention of the Learned State Counsel asserting delay and laches is wholly misconceived and untenable, when, grant for work charge status, involves higher pay fixation and resultant pension at higher-revised rate, giving rise to a recurring-
continuing cause every month and therefore, the writ petition does not suffer from delay and laches, in view of the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M.R. Gupta versus Union of India (1995) 5 SCC 628, Union of India versus Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648, Shiv Dass versus Union of India (2007) 9 SCC 274, and recently in Shri M.L. Patil (dead) through LRs versus The State of Goa and another, 2022 Live Law (SC)
537. ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 42 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) Based on the discussion in Para 12 supra once the judgment in case of Surajmani [supra], is a judgment in rem, entitling the daily wagers .
for work charged status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous service then, the benefits accruing from the declaration of law can neither be restricted nor curtailed or denied to daily wagers like the Respondent-writ petitioner. Denial of work charge status to the Respondent-writ petitioner shall defeat the mandate of the judgement in the case of Surajmani [supra] when, the Appellants-State Authorities have extended the benefit of work charge status to other similarly placed incumbents daily wagers. Denial of similar benefit to the Respondent-
writ petitioner certainly amount to treating "equals as unequal" which shall defeat the parity and also perpetuate hostile discrimination contrary to the spirit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, conferment of work charge status involves fixation of pay in time scale as is admissible to corresponding category of employees from the date of completion of 8 years continuous daily waged ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 43 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) {w.e.f. 01.01.2004 and then in revised scale w.e.f.
1.01.2006 and in the revised scales thereafter during service} and resultant benefit of higher pay fixation .
for retiral benefits, including the admissible higher pension, every month.
13. Last contention of Learned State Counsel is that the directions contained in the impugned judgment granting work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of daily wage service with "restricted monetary benefits" for three years prior to the filing of petition is contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Surajmani (supra) whereby, only "notional benefits"
were to be granted.
13(i). For appreciating the contention of Learned State Counsel, it is necessary to have a recap of Paras 8, 10 and 12 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh versus Surajmani [Civil Appeal No 1595 of 2025, decided on 06.02.2025], reads as under:-
"8. However, in order to allay the apprehension ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 44 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) 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 r accordingly disposed of the said appeal.
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 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 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 45 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 )
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]."
13(ii). While deciding a similar matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court mandated in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No (s). 11170 of 2024, The State of H.P. & Ors. vs Janak Dev Sharma, decided on 26.05.2025, that the judgment in case of Surajmani (supra), is a judgment in rem and the directions contained therein, 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 rem has been passed, it would apply mutatis mutandis in all cases having similar facts and filing separate special leave ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 46 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) petitions is in futility. The State may take note of this fact and do the needful."
13(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. r 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 the case of Surajmani, (supra), binds the State Authorities in all respects.
On the second aspect, regarding claim or direction for "all consequential benefits" or "restricted consequential benefits for three years" is concerned the same is liable to be interfered with on various counts. Firstly, directions to grant all consequential benefits or the restricted consequential benefits is ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 47 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) ex-facie contrary to the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra) which limits the relief to "notional benefits" only ;
.
and secondly, the directions to limit the 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 not be r dehors granted to the extra Constitutional benefits, which Scheme will should 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 the 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 of Surajmani [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, arising from SLP (C) 23016 of 2023, decided on 06.02.2025]; and ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 48 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) thirdly, the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Ashwani Kumar and Surajmani (supra), limiting relief to "notional benefits" cannot .
be permitted to be tinkered with in any eventuality;
and fourthly, grant of "all consequential benefits" or "restricted consequential benefits" shall amount to giving leverage or premium to those daily wagers who were not regularly appointed or were appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme embodied in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India i.e. 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 i.e. "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 door method. Right to "all consequential benefits or restricted consequential benefits" can only accrue to an incumbent including daily wager who ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 49 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) 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 the case of Surajmani (supra) also; and fifthly, mere filing of a petition(s) or its pendency before State Administrative Tribunal or this Court for work charge status, by a daily with the r to wager who was not regularly appointed in accordance 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 work charge status with "all consequential benefits or restricted consequential benefits" by the State Authorities, despite the fact that such daily wagers were not regularly 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 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 50 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) daily wagers, as a class, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has mandated in Para 11 of the judgment in case of Surajmani (supra) by reserving liberty for .
the State Authorities to recover excess benefits in installments, from those daily wagers who were not regularly appointed or were appointed dehors 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).
14. 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 of 8 years of continuous daily wage service was upheld; whereas, the directions regarding "restricted consequential benefits" for three years prior to the ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 51 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) filing of the petition were set-aside by modifying the relief to "notional benefits".
CONCLUSION:
.
15. 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 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 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 52 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) which has been reinforced in Surajmani and Janak Dev Sharma (supra).
Based on above discussion, the Impugned .
Judgment dated 29.09.2023, 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 monetary benefits for 3 years prior to filing of the petition", so as to bring the Impugned Judgment, it tune with the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ashwani Kumar, which stands reinforced in the cases of Surajmani (supra) and recently reiterated in the case of Janak Dev Sharma (supra).
16. No other point was pressed/argued.
DIRECTIONS:
17. In view of the above discussions and for reasons stated hereinabove, the instant appeal, is partly allowed, in the following terms:-
(i) Instant Appeal, LPA No 100 of 2025 is ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 53 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) partly allowed;
(ii) Impugned Judgment dated 29.09.2023 passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWPOA No.4331 of 2020, Layak Ram .
versus State of H.P. & others; entitling the Respondent-writ petitioner for work- charge status from date of completion of 8 years continuous daily waged service is upheld;
(iii) State Authorities-appellants are directed to confer work-charged status as Mali or Class-IV w.e.f. 01.01.2004 or such like due date from completion of 8 years r of continuous daily waged service ; in applicable time-pay scale, by counting daily wage service w.e.f. 01.01.1996;
(iv) Directions in Impugned Judgment giving "restricted monetary benefits for three years three years prior to filing of petition"
being contrary to judgements in the 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 directions contained herein, within six weeks from receipt of certified/downloaded copy of this judgment;
(vi) Parties to bear their respective costs.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS
- 54 - ( 2025:HHC:28990 ) In the aforesaid terms, the Letters Patent Appeal and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of, accordingly.
.
(G.S. Sandhawalia) (Ranjan Sharma)
Chief Justice Judge
August 27, 2025
[tm/Bhardwaj]
r to
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:12 :::CIS