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, Judge1Whether 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 ofthe applicant w.e.f. 01.01.2004 i.e. on
completion of 8 years of continuous
service with 240 days in each calendaryear with all consequential benefits
such as arrears of pay, seniority,
promotion and other allied servicebenefits…”.
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 thepetitioner upon completion of eight
years of service as a daily wager with
240 days in each calendar year. The
monetary benefits as a result thereofare 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 mandateSurajmani 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 ANDfor 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 ofperiod 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 anaffidavit 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 notgoverned 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 observedthat 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 CWPNo. 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 norconversion of work-charged employee
into regular employee would make suchestablishment 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 effectthereof 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 thebenefit 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 justand valid reason. Therefore, it is a
period interregnum daily-wage service
and regularization, which is altogetherdifferent 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, theemployee would get regular pay-scale and
would be entitled to other consequential
benefits for which a daily-waged employeeis not entitled.
27. In response to plea that work-
charged establishment does not exist
in the respondent Department, learnedcounsel for the petitioner has also referred
pronouncements of this High Court in
cases CWPOA No. 5748 of 2019, titledMan 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 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 wasnot 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 subsequentjudgment in Ashwani Kumar‘s case.
Therefore, observations made on this
issue in Rakesh Kumar‘s case are notbinding especially when Civil Appeal
in Ashwani Kumar‘s case has been
dismissed by Supreme Court. Therefore,
abolition or non-existence of workcharge 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 Pradeshhas been prepared by the Government
of Himachal Pradesh and the same
has been placed on record along withthe 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. 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
::: 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 beenmade 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 inthe 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 separateorders 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 alterthe 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 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 avermentsmade 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 identicallysituated 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 Constitutionof 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 judicialpronouncement to all similarly placed
employees without forcing each person
to individually knock the doors ofcourts. This distinction between operation
of delay and laches to judgments delivered
in rem and in personam, is lucidlycaptured 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 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 21:27:12 :::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, inother words, modified the order of the
Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court
by arriving at a conclusion that the
petitioners / appellants therein wouldbe 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 thejudgment of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (Supra)
holds the field and would also be
applicable to the Respondents hereinwho had approached the Tribunal or
the High Court seeking similar relief. As
such, the Respondents shall be entitled
for grant of ‘work-charged’ status fromthe 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 theseparate 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, Surajmaniand Janak Dev Sharma (supra) is
quashed and set-aside; with modifiedrelief 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
[ad_1]
Source link