Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others vs Gita Ram Sharma on 27 August, 2025
( 2025:HHC:28993 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
LPA No.231 of 2025
Reserved on: 14.08.2025
Announced on: 27.08.2025
____________________________________________________________
.
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
…Appellants
Versus
Gita Ram Sharma
…. Respondent
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1Whether approved for reporting?. Yes.
For the appellants: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy
r Advocate General.
For the Respondent: None
Ranjan Sharma, Judge
State Authorities, being the appellants, have
come up before this Court, assailing the Judgment
dated 19.07.2024 [referred to as Impugned Judgment]
passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP No 3190
of 2019, In re: Gita Ram Sharma versus State of
H.P. and others, directing the State Authorities to
grant work charged status to the Respondent-Writ
Petitioner, Gita Ram Sharma, w.e.f. 01.01.2003 from
the date of completion of 8 years continuous daily
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
-2- ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
waged service, countable from 01.01.1995, with all
consequential benefits.
FACTUAL MATRIX BEFORE WRIT COURT:
.
2. Respondent-writ petitioner, Gita Ram Sharma,
filed CWP No 3190 of 2019, for the following relief :-
“(i). That the order dated 22.03.2016
be quashed and set aside the
respondents may kindly be directed
to regularize the services of the
Petitioner w.e.f. 2006 and thereafter
to pay him all the consequentialbenefit and arrears of difference of
salary for which he becomes entitled
alongwith interest .”
2(i). In CWP No 3190 of 2019, the Respondent
-writ petitioner had set up a case that he was
engaged as daily wage worker [Class-IV] in the year
1995 and had completed 240 days during the year
1995 and thereafter during the entire period of
8 years of daily wage service till his regularization
after about 12 years on 05.09.2007. Despite having
been regularized as a Chowkidar on 05.09.2007 yet,
though Respondent-writ petitioner was eligible and
entitled for conferment of work charge status from
date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily
waged service for which he filed an OA No 1348
of 2015, which was disposed of as representation and
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
-3- ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
the claim was rejected on 22.03.2016, Annexure P-2
on the ground that the forest department does not
have a work charge establishment. Feeling aggrieved
.
the instant petition was filed, assailing the rejection
orders and claiming work charged status from the
date the juniors who were engaged on 1.06.1995 were
granted work charge status w.e.f. 01.06.2002, with
claim for higher-better status, higher pay fixation and
benefits.
r to
other benefits from due date with all consequential
2(ii). In Reply, the State Authorities have stated
admitted the factual matrix that the petitioner was
engaged in 1995 and had rendered continuous service
from 1995 onwards and in terms of the regularization
policy dated 09.06.2006, Annexure R-1, the petitioner
stands regularized on 5.09.2007 with prospective effect.
Reply-affidavit states the petitioner filed an OA No
1348 of 2015 and incompliance to the directions
of the State Administrative Tribunal, the matter was
examined in light of the judgement in case of
Rakesh Kumar, which was held to not be applicable.
It is averred that the State Authorities i.e. Additional
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
-4- ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
Chief Secretary [Forests] constituted a committee to
examine as to whether the Forest Department has
work-charge establishment or not and based on the
.
recommendations of Committee, the State Authorities
took a decision on 24.09.2015 [Annexure R-II] that
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
22.03.2016 [Annexure P-2/R-III]. It is stated that the
claim for work charged status is not covered by
the judgment in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya.
In this background, the claim of the Respondent-
writ petitioner for work charge status was denied /
negated by the State Authorities.
2(iii). In Rejoinder, the Respondent-Writ petitioner
has re-asserted his claim for work charge which is
to be granted on completion of 8 years continuous
service for which no post is required, unlike the
regularization for vacant post is required. However,
it is contented that communication dated 24.09.2015
[Annexure R-2 with Reply-Affidavit], which denies the
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
-5- ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
work charge status in Forest department cannot be
applied retrospectively so as to defeat the right for
work-charged status acquired in terms of the mandate
.
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool
Raj Upadhyaya versus State of Himachal Pradesh
(1994) Supp (2) SCC 316 and the judgement of this
Court in Rakesh Kumar versus State of Himachal
Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters
[CWP No. 2735 of 2010, decided on 28.07.2010],
against which, an SLP (C) No. 8830-8860 of 2011
was dismissed on 15.01.2015 and in CWP No 3111
of 2016, State of Himachal Pradesh versus Ashwani
Kumar and judgement in LPA No 165 of 2021, titled
as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Surajmani
and another, decided on 12.01.2023.
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 19.07.2024 BY
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE:
3.
Taking into account the material on record,
Learned Single Judge passed the Impugned Judgment
on 19.07.2024, whereby, the rejection orders dated
22.03.2016, Annexure P-2 were quashed and set-aside
and in entitling the Respondent-writ petitioner herein,
for work-charged status from the date of completion
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
-6- ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
of 8 years of continuous daily wage service [from
01.01.2003] and by giving the restricted consequential
financial benefits for 3 years prior to filing of the
.
writ petition, in the following terms:-
“11. In view of above discussion, the petition
is allowed and the impugned office orderdated 22.03.2016, Annexure P-2, is quashed
and set-aside. The respondents are directed
to grant the work charge status to thepetitioner from the date when he completed
8 years’ continuous service on daily wage
basis. Needless to say that the consequential
benefits shall also follow, subject however,to the condition that petitioner shall be
entitled for consequential financial benefits,
if any, only for a period of three years
immediately preceding the date of filing ofthe petition.”
CHALLENGE TO IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IN
INSTANT APPEAL:
4. In instant Intra-Court Appeal, the State
Authorities have assailed the Impugned Judgment
dated 17.09.2024, 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
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
-7- ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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-II], the Appellant [Forest Department] did
not have a work-charged establishment and therefore,
impugned judgment granting work-charged status
was erroneous; and fourthly, the 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
covered by 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 case of Rakesh Kumar vs State of HP & Others
[CWP No.2735 of 2010] and sixthly, the rejection order
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
-8- ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
was passed on 22.03.2016 [Annexure P-2] and said
order was assailed after 3 years and the petition
was allowed by ignoring the principle of delay and
.
laches; and lastly, the Impugned Judgment granting
restricted consequential financial benefits for 3 years
prior to the filing of writ petitioner, upon grant of
work charged status, was erroneous, being contrary
to the mandate of Law, in the case of State of
Himachal Pradesh
connected matters
r to versus Surajmani and
[Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025
other
decided on 06.02.2025].
5. Heard, Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Learned
Deputy Advocate General for appellants-State. Pursuant
to listing of case and mandate of law in Surajmani,
matter was disposed of at this stage, without calling
for the Respondent-writ petitioner in instant proceedings.
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
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
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
-9- ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
and Another [Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025] and
other connected matters, decided on 06.02.2025,
yet, at the insistence of the Learned State Counsel
.
this Court proceeds to adjudicate the instant appeal,
at this stage itself.
ANALYSIS OF GROUNDS IN LPA AND
CONTENTIONS RAISED:
6. First contention of Learned State Counsel
for the appellants is that the Impugned Judgment
dated 19.07.2024 passed 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, revealing factual matrix
that though he was engaged as a daily wager in
1995 and was regularized after more than 12
years on 05.09.2007, yet, he has a right to be
considered and granted the work charged status
from the date of completion of 8 years of daily
waged service, in the light of the judgments of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal
Pradesh vs Gehar Singh (2007) 12 SCC 43 and
the judgement in CWP No.2735 of 2010, titled as
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 10 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
Rakesh Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh
and others alongwith connected matters; and
was reiterated in CWP No. 3111 of 2016, titled as
.
State of Himachal Pradesh vs Ashwani Kumar,
mandating that for conferment of work charge status
neither the work charge establishment was a pre-
requisite nor posts were required and even such
establishment becoming non-existent or its conversion
would not stand in the way of granting work charged
status. The principle conferring work charge status
was reiterated by this Court in LPA No. 165 of
2021, State of Himachal Pradesh vs Surajmani
and another and based on these principles, 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. 01.01.2003
and in these circumstances, the 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 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 11 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
8. Second contention of Learned State Counsel
is that issue regarding conferment of work-charged
status from the date of completion of 8 years of
.
daily waged service, decided in LPA No. 165 of
2021, titled as 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 Hon’ble 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 hold good any more. The present Letters
Patent Appeal was filed along with an application
for condonation of delay and after the issuance of
notice, the non-applicant/respondent-writ petitioner
but despite service, he chose not to appear before
this Court and accordingly, the delay was condoned
and the LPA was finally taken up for adjudication
at his stage. However, on query by this Court, the
Learned State Counsel informs that the SLP (C)
No.23016 of 2023 [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025],
In re: State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr versus
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 12 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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 and therefore, the Impugned
Judgment dated 19.07.2024, 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. 01.01.2003], 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
the Appellant-Forest Department}
CONCEPT OF WORK CHARGE STATUS IN STATE
OF HIMACHAL PRADESH:
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
- 13 - ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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 the 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. Later on, the State Authorities notified
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 14 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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 the 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 policy of 03.04.2000 was adjudicated
by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Gauri Dutt & Others vs State of HP, Latest HLJ
2008 [HP] 366, 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 the work-
charge status from the date they complete 8 years
of continuous daily wage service.
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 15 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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.7497 of 2020, decided
on 29.7.2024, in the following terms:-
“21. With respect to ground taken by
the respondents Department that
Department is not having work-chargedestablishment and, thus, benefit of
period of service as a work chargedemployee cannot be extended to the
petitioner, it is apt to record thatin Mool Raj Upadhyaya‘s case an
affidavit was filed by the Chief
Secretary to the Government ofHimachal 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
having work-charged establishment or
not.
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 16 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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 governedby 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 wouldget regular scale of pay.
23. Upholding the order passed by the
erstwhile H.P. State AdministrativeTribunal, 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- chargedestablishment is not a prerequisite for
conferment of work-charged status nor
conversion of work-charged employeeinto 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
Kumar‘s case also stands dismissed
by the Supreme Court on 15.01.2015.
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 17 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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 wouldnot result into his ouster from the
service or debar him from getting the
benefit of length of service for that
particular year. Normally, work-chargedstatus is conferred upon a daily-wager,
on accrual of his right for regularization,
on completion of prescribed period
of service, but for non-regularizationis for want of regular vacancy in the
department or for any other just
and valid reason. Therefore, it is a
period interregnum daily-wage serviceand regularization, which is altogether
different form the temporary
establishment of work charge, asdiscussed in the judgment of the Apex
Court relied upon by the State and,for practice in Himachal Pradesh, work-
charged status is not conferred uponthe 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
for his regularization /regular appointment.
Therefore, work is always available in
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
- 18 - ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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 completionof 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 consequentialbenefits 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 incases CWPOA No. 5748 of 2019, titled
Man Singh Vs. The State of Himachal
Pradesh and others; CWPOA No. 52 of2019, titled Beli Ram Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh and another; CWPOA No. 5566of 2019, titled as Reema Devi Vs.
State of H.P. and others; and CWPOANo. 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
2020 titled Uggam Ram vs. State of
HP and others decided on 09.11.2023;
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 19 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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 chargestatus 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, inRakesh Kumar‘s case, this issue was
not adjudicated but without considering
Mool Raj‘s case and without assigningany 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 thisissue in Rakesh Kumar‘s case are not
binding especially when Civil Appeal
in Ashwani Kumar‘s case has beendismissed 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
status, work-charged establishment in
the Department is not prerequisite.
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
- 20 - ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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 2735
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-II, 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,
by granting them better pay, in time scale of pay
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 21 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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 the 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 case of State of Himachal Pradesh
versus Ashwani Kumar, [Civil Appeal No 5753
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 22 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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 daily wagers for work charge
status with “notional benefits” only. Recently, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has reinforced the directions in case
of Himachal
r Pradeshto
of Ashwani Kumar [supra], in the case of State
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 cases of Gauri Dutt, Rakesh
Kumar and Pritam Singh {CWPOA No 7497 of
2020, decided on 29.7.2024}; the contention of the
Learned State Counsel that the Appellant-Department
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 23 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
{Forest Department} does not have a work-charge
establishment cannot sustain. Right and entitlement
of the Respondent-writ petitioner and other similar
.
daily wagers/muster-roll workers serving in all the
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 State Authorities. Accordingly,
the Impugned Judgment passed by Learned Single
Judge, entitling the Respondent-writ petitioner for
work-charge status from the date of completion of
8 years of continuous daily waged 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 case of
Surajmani (supra), which is a judgement in rem,
does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality in
the instant proceedings.
10. Fourth contention of Learned State Counsel
is that the Impugned judgement granting the work
charge status is erroneous, being contrary to the
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 24 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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; and even
a perusal of Paras 2 and 3 of the judgment in
case of Jaswant Singh [supra] indicates that entire
strength of employees
to was work
for execution of specified work in the project i.e.
r charged engaged
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
on the basis of Jaswant Singh‘s case is devoid
of any merit and is turned down, in facts of
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 25 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
instant matter. Accordingly, the Impugned judgment
directing the State Authorities to grant work charge
status to the Respondent-Writ petitioner from date of
.
completion of 8 years continuous daily waged service
[w.e.f. 01.01.2003], despite being regularized from a
subsequent date [in 2007], is as per judgement of
Honble Supreme Court in State of HP versus Gehar
Singh, (2007) 12 SCC 43 and therefore, impugned
11. to
judgment does not suffer from any perversity / infirmity.
Fifth contention of Learned State Counsel
is that the case of the Respondent-writ petitioner
[Gita 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 19.07.2024, 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
case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya still holds the field
and this dictum was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 26 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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
Surajmani (supra), reads as under:-
“4. This Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya
Vs. State of H.P. reported in 1994 Supp.
(2) SCC 316 held as under:
“2. A Scheme for Betterment
r (Appointment) Regularization of Muster-
Roll/Daily-Wagers in 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 ShriK.J.B.V. Subramanyam dated 7-12-1992
in WP (C) No. 249 of 1988.
3. …xxx….
4. Taking into consideration the
facts and circumstances of the case,we modify the said scheme by
substituting paragraphs 1 to 4 of the
same by the following paragraphs:
“(1) Daily-wage/muster-roll workers,
whether skilled or unskilled, who
have completed 10 years or more
of continuous service with a
minimum of 240 days in a calendar
year on 31-12-1993, shall be
appointed as work-charged employees
with effect from 1-1-1994 and shall
be put in the time-scale of pay
applicable to the corresponding::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 27 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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-
r 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.”
5. The workers who had been regularized
in service in the Public Health Department
under various schemes announced by
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 28 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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
class-IV workers (Beldars). The schemes
announced by the Government clearly
provided that the department concerned
should consider the workmen concerned
r 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
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
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 29 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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. 412
of 2016 before the H.P. State Administrative
Tribunal. Their prayer was allowed by
the Tribunal vide order dated 30.06.2016.
Upon challenging the same by the State
in Civil Writ Petition No.3111 of 2016
titled as State of H.P. and Ors. vs. Sh.
Ashwani Kumar the High Court, relying
upon its judgment in Civil Writ Petition
No. 4489 of 2009 titled as Ravi Kumar
Vs. State of H.P. and Ors., decided
on 14.12.2009, maintained the order of
the Tribunal. The order of the High
Court in Ashwani Kumar (Supra) has
also been affirmed by this Court in
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 30 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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.
4. Thus, we make the modification
that the respondent would be
entitled only for notional benefits
of the order passed by the Central
r Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly,with the aforesaid modification in
the order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal and the High Court, the appeal
is disposed of.”
9. It would not be out of context to
refer at this juncture itself that the
State, in its wisdom, having felt that
the subsequent schemes having been
formulated and implemented, would
alter the situation and, therefore, order
dated 12.04.1994 passed in Mool Raj
Upadhyaya‘s (Supra) case has to be
modified, had approached this Court
by filing an Interlocutory Application
being IA No. 3 in the year 2005 in the
aforesaid Mool Raj Upadhyaya‘s case,
i.e., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 787 of
1987. A perusal of the said application
and the averments made thereunder
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 31 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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
(Supra) holds the field and would
also be applicable to the Respondents
herein who had approached the Tribunal
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 32 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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. Sixth contention of Learned State Counsel
is that rejection order was passed on 22.03.2016
[Annexure P-2] but this order was assailed after 3
years, which was allowed by Learned Single Judge
by ignoring the principle of delay and laches.
The plea of delay and latches is totally
misconceived, in view of the fact that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has mandated in Para 12 of the
judgement in the case of Surajmani (supra) that this
judgement would necessarily be a judgement in rem,
in the following terms :-
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::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 33 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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) whichis in rem, but in view of the separate
orders passed by the High Court, severalspecial leave petitions are being filed
by the State. Considering the same, itis 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
this fact and do the needful.”
12(i). Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 34 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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 beenformulated and implemented, would alter
the situation and, therefore, order dated
12.04.1994 passed in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s
r (Supra) case has to be modified, had
approached this Court by filing anInterlocutory Application being IA No.
3 in the year 2005 in the aforesaid
Mool Raj Upadhyaya‘s case, i.e., WritPetition (Civil) No. 787 of 1987. A perusal
of the said application and the averments
made thereunder would clearly indicatethat 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
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 35 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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
in various government departments including the
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 36 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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 reliefby 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 violativeof Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. This principle needs to be appliedin 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
did not approach the Court earlier,
they are not to be treated differently.
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
- 37 - ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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
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.”
Negating the plea of delay and laches, the
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 38 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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 Stateand its instrumentalities are expected
in such category of cases to themselves
extend the benefit of a judicial
r pronouncement to all similarly placedemployees without forcing each person
to individually knock the doors of
courts. This distinction between operation
of delay and laches to judgments deliveredin 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 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 39 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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 andDivision 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 conditionsof 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 21:27:15 :::CIS
- 40 - ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 41 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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.
Based on the discussion in Para 12 supra
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 42 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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
of Surajmani
r to
defeat the mandate of the judgement in the case
[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
{w.e.f. 01.01.2003 and then in revised scale w.e.f.
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 43 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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 consequential benefits” for three years
to filing of petition is contrary to the judgment passed
r prior
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of
Surajmani (supra), whereby, “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
of the State as expressed thereunder
and to safeguard the interest of::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 44 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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 Courtby arriving at a conclusion that the
petitioners / appellants therein would
be entitled to the notional benefits of
the order passed by the Tribunal andaccordingly disposed of the said appeal.
10. For the cumulative reasons afore stated
we are of the considered view that the
r dicta laid down by this Court vide orderdated 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 beapplicable to the Respondents herein
who had approached the Tribunal or
the High Court seeking similar relief. Assuch, 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 reliefin 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…
12. It is further underscored that this
judgment would necessarily be a
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 45 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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 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 theseparate orders passed by the High
Court, several special leave petitionsare 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 this fact and do the needful.”
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 46 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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.
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 in consonance 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
ex-facie contrary to the law declared by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra)
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 47 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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 the case of Surajmani (supra),
mandating that the daily wagers who were not
regularly appointed or meaning thereby, who were
appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme should
not be granted extra benefits, which will burden
the State Exchequer
to and it is
that the succor was given to the State, by modifying
r in this backdrop,
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
thirdly, the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in cases of Ashwani Kumar and Surajmani
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 48 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
(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
is appointed in accordance with the Constitutional
Scheme, which has been outlined by the Hon’ble
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 49 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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
wager who was not regularly appointed in accordance
with the established ethos of public appointment
will not
r confer any to
or was appointed dehors the Constitutional Schemelegally 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
daily wagers, as a class, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has mandated in Para 11 of the judgment in
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 50 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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 case
of Ashwani Kumar (supra), which stands reinforced
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Surajmani
(supra) and recently reiterated in the case of Janak
Dev Sharma (supra).
14. An identical Intra Court Appeal i.e. 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
filing of the petition were set-aside by modifying the
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 51 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
relief to “notional benefits”.
CONCLUSION:
15. In the 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 consequential relief shall be limited only
to notional benefits, in the light of the mandate of
Law, declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Ashwani Kumar (supra), reinforced in the cases
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 52 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
of Surajmani (supra) and Janak Dev Sharma (supra).
Based on above discussion, the Impugned
Judgment dated 19.07.2024, entitling the Respondent
.
-writ petitioner(s) herein, for work charge status from
the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily
wage service is upheld. However, upon conferment
of work charge status, the resultant relief shall be
limited to “notional benefits” instead of “restricted
consequential financial 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 case of Ashwani
Kumar (supra), 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 231 of 2025 is
partly allowed;
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
- 53 - ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
(ii) Impugned Judgment dated 19.07.2024
passed by Learned Single Judge in CWP
No. 3190 of 2019, Gita Ram Sharma
versus State of HP & others; entitling
the Respondent-writ petitioner for work.
charge status from date of completion
of 8 years of continuous daily waged
service is upheld ;
(iii) State Authorities-appellants are directed
to confer the work-charged status as
Chowkidar/Class-IV w.e.f. 01.01.2003 or
like due date from date of completion
r of 8 years continuous daily waged service
in applicable time-pay scale, by counting
daily wage service w.e.f. 1995 ;
(iv) Directions in Impugned Judgment giving
“restricted financial consequential benefits
for three years prior to filing of petition”
being contrary to judgements in the cases
of Ashwani Kumar, Surajmani andJanak Dev Sharma (supra) is quashed
and set-aside ; with modified relief of
“notional benefits” from due date, butwithout any past arrears;
(v) State Authorities shall comply directions
contained herein, within six weeks from
the date of receipt of certified/downloaded
copy of this judgment;
(vi) Parties to bear their respective costs.
::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
– 54 – ( 2025:HHC:28993 )
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
[Bhardwaj/tm]
r to
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:15 :::CIS
[ad_1]
Source link