Himachal Pradesh High Court
The State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Hamila Devi on 29 August, 2025
( 2025:HHC:29206 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
LPA No.186 of 2025
Reserved on :_14.08.2025
Announced on: 29.08.2025
____________________________________________________________
.
The State of Himachal Pradesh …Appellants
and others
Versus
Hamila Devi
…. Respondent
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1Whether approved for reporting?. Yes.
For the appellants: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional
r Advocate General.
For the respondent: Ex-parte.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge
State Authorities, being the appellants, have
come up before this Court, assailing the Judgment
dated 11.01.2024 [referred to as Impugned Judgment]
passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP No. 4868
of 2022, In re: Hamila Devi Versus State of Himachal
Pradesh and others; directing the State Authorities
to grant the work charged status to the Respondent-
writ petitioner {w.e.f. 01.01.2008} from the date of
completion of 8 years of daily waged service, countable
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
-2- ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
from 01.01.2000, with all consequential benefits.
FACTUAL MATRIX BEFORE WRIT COURT:
2. Hamila Devi-writ petitioner had come up
.
before the writ court, in CWP No. 4868 of 2022, seeking
following reliefs:-
“(i). That the respondents may be ordered
to grant work charge status to the
petitioner from the date she completed
8 years’ service with all benefits
incidental thereof, since the petitioner
was in continuous service from thedate she was engaged on daily wage
basis.”
2(i). In CWP No. 4868 of 2022, case set up by
the Respondent-writ petitioner, [namely, Hamila Devi]
is that she was engaged as Beldar during the year
2000 and had completed 8 years continuous service
and her services were regularized on 08.03.2017 w.e.f.
01.10.2016 and she joined her regular appointment
on 08.03.2017 [Annexure R-2 (colly)] but, the State
Authorities have not been granted the work charge
status {as in Paras-2 and 9 of the writ petition, from
due date, with all consequential benefits} .
2(ii). In Reply to writ petition, State Authorities
admitted the incumbency of the Respondent-writ
petitioner that she was engaged as a Beldar on daily
::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
-3- ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
wage muster-roll basis by the Executive Engineer,
HPPWD Rohru during the year 2000 and she
was regularized on 08.03.2017 Annexure R-2], which
.
is clear from the Mandays Chart [Annexure R-1 with
writ petition]. In reply affidavit, the claim for work
charge status was denied on the ground that in
department of PWD, the work charge establishment
for Class-IV category was abolished on 19.08.2005
and, therefore, the claim for work charge status was
devoid of any merit. However, Reply Affidavit stated
that the State Authorities issued the Rules for
post of Class-IV Beldars in May 1995 and these
were amended by State Authorities on 03.07.2013
making a person, who was a citizen of India as
eligible for appointment for aforesaid post, due
to which the daily wagers Class-IV of Nepali Origin
were denied appointment, by way of regularization.
To meet this eventuality, State Authorities took a
decision on 30.07.2013 and again on 24.09.2016
implementable w.e.f 1.10.2016, relaxing the Rules, so
as to confer regularizing to Class-IV Daily Waged
Beldars of Nepali origin and it is asserted that
::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
-4- ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
the writ petitioner was regularized on 08.03.2017
which was duly accepted and therefore, the present
petition was devoid of any merit.
.
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 11.01.2024 BY
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE:
3. CWP No. 4868 of 2022 was decided by
Learned Single Judge on 11.01.2024, directing the
State Authorities to grant work charge status to
the Respondent-writ petitioner from the date she
completed 8 years of continuous daily wage service
along with consequential benefits for 3 years prior
to the date of filing of the writ petition, in following
terms:-
“7. In view of the above, the writ
petition filed by the petitioner is allowed
and the respondents are directed togrant work charge status to the petitioner
from the date, she had completed eightyears of service on daily wage basis in
terms of the decision given by this Courtin Ashwani Kumar’s case supra. However
benefits consequent to conferment of work
charge status in terms of the instant
judgment shall be restricted to three
years for the period prior to filing of
petition.”
4. In instant Intra-Court Appeal, the State
Authorities have assailed the Impugned Judgment
::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
-5- ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
dated 11.01.2024, on the grounds, firstly, that the
Learned Single Judge had ignored the pleadings
and the Respondent writ petitioner had accepted
.
her regularization without any protest on 08.03.2017,
therefore, the Respondent had no right to claim
work charged status and therefore, the impugned
judgment being perverse was liable to be set-aside;
and secondly, the issue regarding conferment of
daily-wage
r service, to
work-charged status on completion of 8 years of
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 aforesaid 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, the
State Authorities abolished the work charged cadre
for Class-IV category on 19.08.2005 therefore, work
charge status was not admissible; and lastly, the
Impugned Judgment giving the restricted monetary
benefits for 3 years prior to filing of the writ petition
::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
-6- ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
was erroneous, being contrary to the law, mandated
in State of Himachal Pradesh versus Surajmani and
other connected matters [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of
.
2025 decided on 06.02.2025].
5. Heard, Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional
Advocate General, for the Appellants-State and have
perused the record .
MATTER IN ISSUE COVERED BY JUDGMENT
IN SURAJMANI [CIVIL APPEAL No.1595 OF 2025]
DECIDED ON 06.02.2025:
6. The matter in issue in instant appeal is
no longer res integra, in view of the mandate of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Himachal
Pradesh & Others versus Surajmani and Another
[Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025 and other connected
matters, decided on 06.02.2025], yet, in view of the
vehement insistence of the Learned State Counsel,
this Court proceeds to examine the matter.
ANALYSIS OF CONTENTIONS RAISED & GROUNDS
IN INSTANT LPA:
7. First contention of Learned State Counsel
is that the Impugned Judgment dated 11.01.2024,
passed by the Learned Single Judge, by ignoring the
pleadings is liable to be set- aside.
::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
-7- ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
The above contention is misconceived, for
the reason, that the Impugned Judgment takes into
account the pleadings, revealing the factual matrix
.
that though the Respondent-writ petitioner, a person
of Nepali origin was engaged as daily waged Beldar
in the year 2000 and had completed 240 days in
said year and though her services were regularized
on 08.03.2017, Annexure R-2, yet, she was denied
work charged
status when, the Honble
Court, in the context of the daily wagers in the
r Supreme
State of Himachal Pradesh, has held in principle,
in State of Himachal Pradesh vs Gehar Singh
(2007) 12 SCC 43, that grant of regularization shall
not divest an employee of the right for work charge
status from an earlier date. Moreover, right of the
daily wagers for work charged status stands settled
by the judgment in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled as
Rakesh Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh
and others along with connected matters; against
which SLP was dismissed by Three Judges Bench
of the Honble Supreme Court; and this right was
reiterated in case of CWP No. 3111 of 2016, State
::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
-8- ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
of Himachal Pradesh versus Ashwani Kumar,
mandating to grant work charge status, irrespective
of the fact as to whether work charge establishment
.
existed and conversion of work charged establishment
would not make such right non-existent. Even 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,
which stands affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court
in case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Others
versus Surajmani and Another [Civil Appeal No.
1595 of 2025 and other connected matters, decided
on 06.02.2025]. Based on this, the Learned Single
Judge directed the State Authorities to grant the
work-charged status to the Respondent-writ petitioner
from date of completion of 8 years of continuous
daily-wage service after taking into account the
material on record and the factual and legal matrix
and therefore, the impugned judgement does not
warrant any interference in fact-situation of instant
proceedings.
9. Second contention of Learned State Counsel
::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
-9- ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
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, 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 04.09.2024, and matter
was listed on 09.12.2024, when, the notice was
issued to the non-applicant/respondent-writ petitioner
but since she chose not to appear, despite having
been served therefore, she was proceeded ex-parte
22.04.2025 when, after condoning the delay, the
LPA was finally taken up for adjudication at this
stage. However, on query by this Court, Learned
State Counsel informs that the SLP (C) No. 23016
of 2023 [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025], In re:
::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
– 10 – ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr vs Surajmani
and other connected cases, stands decided by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court on 06.02.2025, entitling
.
daily wagers for work charged status from the
date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily
wage service. Since, SLP in the case of Surajmani
[supra] stands decided, therefore, Impugned Judgment
dated 11.01.2024, 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. 01.01.2008], does not suffer from
any infirmity or illegality.
10. Third contention of Learned State Counsel
is that work charge status cannot be granted after
abolition of work charged status on 19.08.2005 in
case of Class-IV daily wagers, including category of
Beldar.
The above plea is misconceived for the
reason that firstly, the right acquired by a daily
wager for work charged status in terms of the
mandate of the judgment of the Honble Supreme
Court in the case of Surajmani (supra) can neither
::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
– 11 – ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
be negated nor taken away by the State Authorities;
and secondly, the contention of the Learned State
Counsel cannot sustain, as the same would amount
.
to depriving the Respondent-writ petitioner of the
benefits accruing in terms of the mandate of the
judgement in the case of Surajmani, which is
a judgement in rem and is binding on the State
Authorities and Court(s) and thirdly, as per the
for conferment
r of to
mandate of law in case of Ashwani Kumar (supra)
work charge status there was
neither the need for work charge establishment nor
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 to daily wagers in the State
and lastly, once the neither State Authorities in the
appellant-department has granted work charge status
to other Class-IV daily wagers Beldars, from the
date of completion of 8 years of daily waged service
with higher pay benefits therefore, the denial of
similar work charged status with higher pay fixation
to the respondent-writ petitioner herein is patently
::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
– 12 – ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
discriminatory, illegal and is violative of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India and when,
concept of work charge status, in Himachal Pradesh
.
was introduced by the State Authorities and the
same was also approved by the Honble Apex Court
as detailed hereinbelow, and therefore, the Impugned
Judgment granting work charged status does not
suffer from any infirmity.
10(i).
r to
CONCEPT OF WORK CHARGE STATUS IN STATE
OF HIMACHAL PRADESH:
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
::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
– 13 – ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
Supreme Court in 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.
Later on, the State Authorities notified a policy on
03.04.2000 and this policy remained in vogue till
the issuance of another policy on 09.06.2004 meaning
thereby, that daily wagers engaged between this
period would be granted the work charged status.
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
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
::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
– 14 – ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
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 wage service.
10(ii).
LAW OF THIS COURT ON CONCEPT OF WORK
CHARGE STATUS IS ALSO PARI-MATERIA TO
DECISION IN SURAJMANI:
In plethora of judgments, the daily wagers
have been held entitled for work charge status, in
time scale of pay as is admissible to corresponding
category of employees on completion of requisite 8
years of daily waged service irrespective of the fact
as to whether work charge establishment exists
or not in the case of Pritam Singh vs State of
Himachal Pradesh, CWPOA No.7497of 2020, decided
on 29.7.2024, in the following terms:-
“21. With respect to ground taken by
the respondents Department that
Department is not having work-charged
establishment and, thus, benefit of
period of service as a work charged::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
– 15 – ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
employee cannot be extended to the
petitioner, it is apt to record that
in Mool Raj Upadhyaya‘s case an
affidavit was filed by the Chief
Secretary to the Government of.
Himachal Pradesh, formulating a
Scheme for granting work charged
status to all daily-waged employees,
serving in the State of HimachalPradesh, in all Departments, irrespective
of the fact that Department is/was
having work-charged establishment ornot.
22. In Gauri Dutt’s case, it has been
held that the scheme formulated inMool 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 MoolRaj 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 CWP
No. 3111 of 2016, titled as State of
Himachal Pradesh v. Ashwani Kumar,
has pronounced that work- charged
establishment is not a prerequisite for
conferment of work-charged status nor::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
– 16 – ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
conversion of work-charged employee
into regular employee would make such
establishment non-existent.
24. Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019,
titled as State of H.P. vs. Ashwani.
Kumar, preferred by the State in Ashwani
Kumar’s case has been dismissed by
the Supreme Court on 22.07.2019.
Similarly, SLP (C) No. 8830-8869 of
2011 preferred by the State in Rakesh
Kumar‘s case also stands dismissed
by the Supreme Court on 15.01.2015.
25. Term “work-charge”, in Himachal
Pradesh, is used in different context.
A person, working on daily-waged basis,before his regularization, is granted work-
charged status on completion of specified
number of years as daily wager and effect
thereof is that thereafter non-completionof 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-chargedstatus is conferred upon a daily-wager,
on accrual of his right for regularization,on completion of prescribed period
of service, but for non-regularization
is for want of regular vacancy in the
department or for any other just
and valid reason. Therefore, it is a
period interregnum daily-wage service
and regularization, which is altogether
different form the temporary
establishment of work charge, as::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
– 17 – ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
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 forwant of creation of post by Government
for his regularization /regular appointment.
Therefore, work is always available insuch 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 fromservice.
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 andwould be entitled to other consequential
benefits for which a daily-waged employee
is not entitled.
27. In response to plea that work-
charged establishment does not exist
in the respondent Department, learned
counsel for the petitioner has also referred
pronouncements of this High Court in
cases CWPOA No. 5748 of 2019, titled
Man Singh Vs. The State of Himachal
Pradesh and others; CWPOA No. 52 of
2019, titled Beli Ram Vs. State of Himachal::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
– 18 – ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
Pradesh and another; CWPOA No. 5566
of 2019, titled as Reema Devi Vs.
State of H.P. and others; and CWPOA
No. 5660 of 2019, titled Ghanshyam
Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh.
and others; LPA No. 151 of 2021, titled
State of HP Vs. Beli Ram, decided
on 09.08.2023; CWPOA No. 5554 of
Daulat Ram2019, titled vs. State of
HP and others; CWPOA No.6468 of
2020 titled Uggam Ram vs. State of
HP and others decided on 09.11.2023;
and CWPOA No. 6151 of 2020 titled Rashid
Mohammed vs. State of HP and others
decided on 13.06.2024; wherein similar
plea of respondent-State did not findfavour 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 consideredin Rakesh Kumar‘s case. In fact, in
Rakesh Kumar‘s case, this issue was
not adjudicated but without considering
Mool Raj‘s case and without 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 this
issue in Rakesh Kumar‘s case are not
binding especially when Civil Appeal
in Ashwani Kumar’s case has been::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
– 19 – ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
dismissed by Supreme Court. Therefore,
abolition or non-existence of work
charge establishment in the respondent-
Department has no effect on the
rights of petitioner for conferment
.
of work-charged status after completion
of 8 years in terms of Policy of
the Government as well as verdict of
Rakesh Kumar‘s case.
29. For conferment of work-charged
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
r in LPA No 151 of 2021, titled as Stateof Himachal Pradesh versus Beli Ram
also.”
10(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.2735 of 2010, against which SLP (C) No. 8830-8869
of 2011 on 15.01.2015] was also dismissed. The
matter regarding grant of work charge status from
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, State of Himachal
::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
– 20 – ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
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
case of State of Himachal Pradesh versus Ashwani
r Court in the
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
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
::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
– 21 – ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
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
Mool Raj Upadhyaya, Gehar Singh, Ashwani Kumar
and Surajmani [supra] and the judgments of this
Court in cases of Gauri Dutt, Rakesh Kumar and
Pritam Singh {CWPOA No 7497 of 2020, decided on
29.7.2024}; 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
State Authorities. Contention of Learned State Counsel
and the action of State Authorities in raking up
the plea that since work charge establishment stood
abolished therefore, the work charge status cannot
be granted cannot be permitted when, this plea stands
negated by this Court in case of judgement passed
::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
– 22 – ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
by the Division Bench of this Court Ashwani Kumar,
(supra), which stands upheld by the Honble Supreme
Court and moreover, when, concept of work charge
.
status in the State of Himachal Pradesh was just
conferment of a better status by giving pay in the
time scale-pay scale as was admissible to persons
holding corresponding posts, in terms of the Scheme
of Betterment framed by the State Authorities, which
was approved by the Honble Supreme Court in Mool
Raj Upadhyaya (supra) and judgements subsequent
thereto, as referred to above. In these circumstances,
this Court reiterates that for purposes of conferment
of work charge status to all the daily wagers in
Himachal Pradesh, there was neither any need for
work charge establishment nor its cessation or its
abolition or conversion would make any difference
and even there was no requirement for creation of
post and even availability or non-availability of post
would have any impact for conferring such status.
Recently, the Honble Supreme Court has mandated
in Surajmani [supra], by declaring the law, by way
of judgment in rem, entitling daily wagers for work
::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
– 23 – ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
charged status from date of completion of 8 years
of continuous service then, the rights and benefits
accruing from the declaration of law can neither be
.
restricted nor curtailed or denied to daily wagers
like respondent-writ petitioner. Denial of work charge
status to the respondent-writ petitioner shall certainly
defeat the mandate of the judgement for granting
benefits without resorting to pick and choose when,
number of
r daily to
the State Authorities have extended benefit to large
wagers throughout the State to
many similar incumbents, and therefore, remaining or
left over incumbents, alike respondent-writ petitioner
is entitled for same benefits, so as to give effect to
the intent and spirit of the judgement dated
06.02.2025, in the case of Surajmani (supra), which
stands reinforced on 26.05.2025 in case of Janak
Dev Sharma (infra). Further, the denial of benefit
shall certainly amount to treating “equals as unequal”
and shall defeat the parity. Denial of benefits to
the Respondent-writ petitioner shall perpetuate hostile
discrimination within one homogenous class of daily
wagers, who are entitled for work charged status
::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
– 24 – ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
after 8 years of daily waged service. Denial shall
frustrate the spirit of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. In-addition, the conferment of
.
work charge status involves pay fixation in the time
scale of pay as admissible to corresponding category
of employees from the date of completion of 8 years
continuous daily waged w.e.f. 01.01.2008 and in
revised scale notified in January 2022 w.e.f. 1.1.2016
and thereafter. Right of an in-service employee and
for pay fixation and resultant right for higher retiral
benefits, including higher pension upon superannuation
gives rise to a recurring and continuing cause every
month till day. In these circumstances, the impugned
judgement, so far as it entitles the Respondent-writ
petitioner for work charge status does not suffer from
any infirmity or illegality and the same is upheld.
11. Fourth contention of Learned State Counsel
is that the State Authorities are aggrieved against
operative part of directions contained in Para-7 of
the Impugned Judgment dated 11.01.2024, entitling
the Respondent-writ petitioner entitled for “restricted
consequential benefits for three years prior to the
::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
– 25 – ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
filing of the writ petition [filed on 18.07.2022], by
contending that these directions are contrary to the
mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State
.
of Himachal Pradesh versus Ashwani Kumar [Civil
Appeal No. 5753 of 2019, decided on 22.07.2019]
and the judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh
versus Surajmani and other connected cases [Civil
Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, decided on 06.02.2025].
11(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 Surajmani
(supra), which reads as under:
“8. However, in order to allay the
apprehension of the State as expressedthereunder and to safeguard the interest
of the State which otherwise would have
burdened the exchequer with extra
benefits being conferred on theemployees who had not been regularly
appointed, this Court has, as a succor to
the State, restricted the claim or, in other
words, modified the order of the Tribunal
as affirmed by the High Court by arriving
at a conclusion that the petitioners/
appellants therein would be entitled to
the notional benefits of the order passed::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
– 26 – ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
by the Tribunal and accordingly disposed
of the said appeal.
10. For the cumulative reasons aforestated
we are of the considered view that
the dicta laid down by this Court.
vide order dated 22.07.2019 in Ashwani
Kumar’s (Supra) case which is based on
the judgment of Mool Raj Upadhyaya(Supra) holds the field and would also
be applicable to the Respondents
herein who had approached theTribunal 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 and4 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
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].”
11(ii). Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
– 27 – ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
mandated in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary
No(s). 11170 of 2024, in Re; The State of H.P.
& Ors. Versus Janak Dev Sharma, decided on
.
26.05.2025, mandating that the judgment in case
of Surajmani (supra) is judgment in rem with
the further mandate that the directions contained
in Surajmani (supra) would apply mutatis mutandis
in all the cases having same facts, in the following
terms:-
r “5. toIt is experienced that despite passing the
judgment in Surajmani (supra) which isin rem, but in view of the separate orders
passed by the High Court, several special
leave petitions are being filed by theState. Considering the same, it is to be
expressed that in our view, when a
judgment in rem has been passed, itwould apply mutatis mutandis in all
cases having similar facts andfiling separate special leave petitions
is in futility. The State may take noteof this fact and do the needful.”
11(iii). In the above backdrop, this Court is
of the considered view, that the judgment in the
case of Surajmani (supra) was “judgment in rem”
declaring the law, covering twin aspects, firstly,
::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
– 28 – ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
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 grant of work
charge status.
The directions contained in the Impugned
Judgment, on the first aspect, regarding entitlement
of daily wagers for grant of work charge status
daily wage
r service,to
from the date of completion of 8 years of continuousbeing inconsonance with the
declaration of law in the case of Surajmani, (supra),
needs no interference in these proceedings.
On the second aspect, regarding the
directions for granting “all consequential benefits”
or “restricted consequential benefits for three years”
is liable to be interfered with. Firstly, the directions
to grant all consequential benefits is contrary to
the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Surajmani (supra) which limits the
relief to “notional benefits”; and secondly, the directions
to limit relief to “notional benefits” was based on
findings recorded in Para 8 of the judgment in
::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
– 29 – ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
the case of Surajmani (supra), mandating that the
daily wagers who were not regularly appointed or
were appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme
.
should not be granted extra benefits, which will
burden the State Exchequer and it is primarily in
this backdrop, that succor was given to the State,
by modifying the orders giving “all consequential
benefits”, passed by the Learned State Administrative
Tribunal, upheld by the Division Bench of this Court,
were modified to “notional benefits” by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of Ashwani Kumar [Civil
Appeal No. 5753 of 2019, decided on 22.07.2019]
and more-so, this principle stands reinforced in
the 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 (supra), mandating to limit
the relief to “notional benefits” cannot be permitted
to be tinkered with in any eventuality; and fourthly,
grant of “all consequential benefits” or “restricted
benefits” shall amount to giving leverage or premium
::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
– 30 – ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
to those daily wagers who were not regularly
appointed or were appointed dehors the Constitutional
Scheme of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
.
of India i.e. without there being a sanctioned post,
without advertising post, without inviting applications
from the eligible candidates and without determining
comparative merit of all the eligible candidates in-
accordance with the Constitutional Scheme. Financial
incentives i.e. “all consequential benefits” or “restricted
benefits” cannot be extended to those daily wagers
who were regularly appointed and not to those
daily wagers who were appointed dehors the
established ethos of public employment, by back
door method. Right to “all consequential benefits
or restricted benefits” can only accrue to a daily
wager who was initially appointed as per the
Constitutional Scheme, which stands approved in
the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs
Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 01} and reaffirmed in
the case of Surajmani (supra) also; and fifthly,
mere filing of a petition(s) or pendency of petition,
before State Administrative Tribunal or this Court
::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
– 31 – ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
for work charge status by daily wager, who was
not regularly appointed as per the established
ethos of public appointment or was appointed dehors
.
the Constitutional Scheme will not have any legally
enforceable right for “all consequential benefits” or
“restricted benefits” as the case may be ; and lastly,
since some daily wagers were extended the benefits
of work charge status with “all consequential benefits
or restricted
despite the fact that such
r to
benefits”, by the Statedaily wagers were not
Authorities,regularly appointed or were appointed dehors the
Constitutional Scheme and in order to carve out
parity and to obviate the charge of discrimination
inter-se the daily wagers, seeking work charge
status, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has mandated
in Para 11 of the judgment in Surajmani (supra)
reserving liberty to 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 charged
status, with “notional benefits, which shall be in
::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
– 32 – ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
inconsonance with the mandate of Law declared by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court Ashwani Kumar (supra),
which stands reinforced by the Hon’ble Supreme
.
Court in Surajmani (supra) and reiterated in the
case of Janak Dev Sharma (supra).
11(iv). In instant appeal, the Respondent-Employee
has not placed any material on record to establish
that she was regularly appointed or was appointed
on daily wages inconsonance with the Constitutional
Scheme as discussed above. In the absence of any
material on record, to establish “that the appointment
of the Respondent-writ petitioner was as per the
Constitutional Scheme; therefore, this Court, has no
hesitation to hold that the Respondent-employee
shall be entitled for work charge status from 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 the
light of the mandate of Law declared by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of Ashwani Kumar (supra),
which has been reinforced by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Surajmani (supra).
::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
– 33 – ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
IDENTICAL ISSUE DECIDED:
12. In an identical Intra Court Appeal, LPA
No. 541 of 2025, State of Himachal Pradesh vs
.
Krishani Devi, this Court held the Respondent
-employee entitled for work charged status from
date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily
wage service; whereas, directions regarding “restricted
consequential benefits” for three years prior to filing
of writ petition are set-aside by modifying the relief
to “notional benefits”.
CONCLUSION:
13. In view of above discussion, the directions
contained in the Impugned Judgment, regarding the
entitlement and grant of work charge status to
the Respondent-writ petitioner [Hamila Devi] from
the date of completion of 8 years of continuous
daily wage service is upheld. However, upon grant
of work charge status, the resultant relief shall
be limited only to “notional benefits” instead of the
direction in operative part of impugned judgement
for giving “restricted consequential benefits for three
years prior to filing of the writ petition” {filed on
::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
– 34 – ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
18.07.2022}, so as to bring the impugned judgement
in tune with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the cases Ashwani Kumar (supra),
.
which stands reinforced by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Surajmani (supra), and recently reiterated
in Janak Dev Sharma (supra).
14. No other point was pressed/argued.
DIRECTIONS:
15.
In view of the above discussions and for
reasons stated hereinabove, the instant appeal, is
partly allowed, in following terms:-
(i) Instant Appeal LPA No. 186 of 2025, is
partly allowed;
(ii) Impugned Judgment dated 11.01.2024
passed by the Learned Single Judge inCWP No.4868 of 2022, Hamila Devi vs
State of H.P. & others; entitling theRespondent-Writ Petitioner [Hamila Devi]
for work-charge status from date ofcompletion of 8 years of continuous
daily waged service is upheld ;
(iii) State Authorities-appellants are directed
to confer work-charged status as a
Beldar [Class-IV] w.e.f. 01.01.2008 or
like due date from date of completion
of 8 years of continuous daily waged::: Downloaded on – 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
– 35 – ( 2025:HHC:29206 )
service in applicable time-pay scale,
with pay fixation benefits from due date,
by counting daily wage service w.e.f.
01.01.2000 ;
.
(iv) Directions in the Impugned Judgment
for releasing “consequential benefits for
three years prior to the filing of writ
petition” shall stand modified to “notional
benefits” from due date, but without
any past arrears;
(v) State Authorities shall comply with the
directions contained herein, within six
weeks from receipt of certified/downloaded
r copy of this judgment;
(vi) Parties to bear their respective costs.
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 29, 2025
[tm/Bhardwaj]
::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2025 21:33:24 :::CIS
[ad_1]
Source link