IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.13574 of 2024 Decided on 06th March 2026 Gulzar Mohd. …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 3. Mr. Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) “That the impugned Annexure P-6 and P-7 may kindly be quashed and set aside by issuing a writ of certiorari. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner after completion of 8 years i.e. 31.12.2001 as per policy of the State Government and petitioner may be 2 granted the arrears of pay scale and other financial benefits w.e.f. due date i.e. w.e.f. 2005 when the agreement has been executed between the employees of AIPIL with the State Government. (iii) That the petitioner may be considered as Class-III employee at the time of petitioner was sent on secondment basis with respondent No.3. (iv) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant pension and pensionary benefits in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. As the facts are not much in dispute and as the legal position relating to the relief prayed for is also no more res-integra, the following facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are being mentioned:- 3. The petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis as a Mechanical Fitter with respondent No.2 in the year 1993. In the year 2007, as the petitioner alongwith other employees of respondent No.2 were declared surplus, they were sent on secondment basis to various departments of the Government. The petitioner was transferred as a Chowkidar on secondment basis to respondent No.3-Department, as per Annexure P-2. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were regularized on 31.05.2008 which is not in dispute. 3 4. The petitioner initially approached the Court by way of CWP No.6871 of 2010, titled as Gulzar Mohd. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, praying for his regularization upon completion of 10 years of continuous service, which writ petition was disposed of by this Court in terms of Annexure P-4 dated 19.06.2012 with the direction that when the petitioner completes 10 years of continuous service with minimum of 240 days in each calendar year, he shall be entitled to work charge status/regularization. It was further observed in this order that if the petitioner had already completed 10 years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year, as on the day of the passing of the judgment, his case shall be considered by respondents No.1 and 2 therein and they shall pass appropriate orders within three months. Said judgment was assailed by the State by way of a Letters Patent Appeal. Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in terms of Annexure P-5 dated 20.11.2012 upheld the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge and directed that as the State had, in the interregnum, introduced a new policy for regularization after completion of 7 years of daily wage service, subject to availability of post, the case of the 4 petitioner be considered in terms of the said policy. 5. It transpires that thereafter two orders have been passed by the Competent Authority, one order is Annexure P-6 dated 29.01.2016, passed by Excise and Taxation Commissioner Himachal Pradesh which as per the petitioner, was made available to him vide Annexure P-6 dated 05.12.2019 and the other order dated 16.03.2017 (Annexure P-7) passed by Principal Secretary (Hort.) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, in terms whereof, the case of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status has been rejected on the ground that AIPIL was not a work charge establishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the rejection of the case of the petitioner on this count is bad for the reason that this issue stands settled up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that for the purpose of conferment of the work charge status, it is not necessary that the establishment where the incumbent is working is a work charge establishment. 5 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General and learned counsel for AIPIL have submitted that there is no infirmity in the orders, in terms whereof, the petitioner has been denied the benefit of work charge status for the reason that as AIPIL was not a work charge establishment, obviously, work charge status could not have been conferred upon the petitioner. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents on record. 8. The limited issue which has to be decided by this Court in this petition is as to whether the rejection of the case of the petitioner on the ground that work charge status cannot be conferred upon him on completion of requisite number of years’ service on account of AIPIL not being a work charge establishment is justified in the eyes of law or not. 9. The issue as to whether the conferment of work charge status is dependent on the establishment being a work charge establishment stands settled. Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. vs. Sh. 6 Ashwani Kumar, CWP No. 3111 of 2016, decided on 10.05.2018, while confirming an order passed by the erstwhile Tribunal, held as under:- 6. Having carefully perused material available on record, especially judgment rendered by this Court in Ravi Kumar v. State of H.P. and Ors, as referred herein above, which has been further upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to appeal (C) No. 33570/2010 titled State of HP and Ors. v. Pritam Singh and connected matters, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that there is no error in the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that work charge establishment is not a pre-requisite for conferment of work charge status. The Division Bench of this Court while rendering its decision in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled Rakesh Kumar decided on 28.7.2010, has held that regularization has no concern with the conferment of work charge status after lapse of time, rather Court in aforesaid judgment has categorically observed that while deciding the issue, it is to be borne in mind that the petitioners are only class-IV worker (Beldars) and the schemes announced by the Government, clearly provides that the department concerned should consider the workmen concerned for bringing them on the work charged category and as such, there is an obligation cast upon the department to consider the case of daily waged workman for conferment of daily work charge status, being on a work charged establishment on completion of required number of years in terms of the policy. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been specifically held that benefits which accrued on workers as per policy are required to be conferred by the department. 7 7. Subsequent to aforesaid decision, this Court while disposing of CWP No. 2398 of 2016 titled HPSEB and Anr. V. Nanak Chand and Ors, (alongwith connected matters), upheld the decision rendered by the learned Tribunal, whereby the respondent-electricity board was directed to consider the case of the applicant for conferment of work charge status on completion of ten years of service with all benefits incidental thereto. It may be noticed that decision rendered by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 3207 of 2015 in Narotam Singh v. HPSEB Ltd. and Ors, dated 14.12.2015, which subsequently came to be assailed in CWP No. 3301/2016, was squarely based upon decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (1990) 1 SCC 361, as well as judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 9970 of 2012 titled Laxmi Devi v. State of H.P. and ors., decided on 26.11.2012. 8. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel representing the respondent has also brought factum to our notice with regard to the implementation of similar directions as issued in the present case by the various departments pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Tribunal as well as this Court in the case of other similarly situate persons. Mr. Gupta also invited attention of this Court to the judgments having been passed by this Court in CWP No.2735 of 2010, dated 28.7.2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar v. State of H.P. and others; 13.5.2013, passed in CWP No.1906 of 2013-A, titled as Hira Singh v. HPSEB Ltd. & anr.; 14.8.2014, passed in CWP No.2551 of 2014, titled as H.P. State Electricity Board and another v. Bhag Singh and others; 10.9.2014, passed in CWP No.179 of 2014, titled as Beg Dass and others v. HPSEB Ltd. and anr.; and 20.11.2014, passed in LPA No.621 of 2011, titled as H.P. State Electricity Board Limited and 8 others v. Jagmohan Singh, perusal whereof clearly suggests that benefit as prayed for in the instant petition stands duly accorded to other similarly situate persons. 9. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law relied upon, we see no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal and as such, present petition fails and dismissed accordingly.” 10. The judgment passed by this Court in abovementioned case was assailed by the Department before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the findings returned by this Court were upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5753/2019, in the following terms: "1. Leave granted. 2. We have issued notice in this matter limited to the question of grant of back-wages. The respondent was engaged as a daily wager (Class IV) on 01.08.1994. Thereafter, he was given the post of Work Inspector in Class Ill that too on the daily wages basis, in view of the decision of the Government on completion of eight years of service. On 09.06.2006, regularization policy was framed and the appellant was regularized on 21.12.2006 on the temporary post of Work Inspector. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition in the High Court on 14.11.2013 seeking work charge status with effect from 01.01.2003 and other incidental benefits. The High Court, at the first instance, considered and rejected the representation of the respondent vide order dated 26.03.2014. The respondent filed another O.A. No.412 of 2016 before the Central 9 Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal has quashed the order and has ordered that on completion of eight years as daily wager work charge status can be conferred. 3. We are not disturbing the finding of the Tribunal, which was affirmed by the High Court, with respect to the conferral of the status of the work charge from 01.01.2003. However, as regularization has been made only in the year 2006, obviously, notional benefit could have to be granted as the petition was initially filed in the year 2013. 4. Thus, we make the modification that the respondent would be entitled only for notional benefits of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly, with the aforesaid modification in the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court, the appeal is disposed of." 11. While referring to this judgment subsequently, another Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 165 of 2021, titled as State of H.P. and others vs. Surajmani and another, was pleased to hold that in Ashwani Kumar’s case, it was held specifically that work charge establishment was not a prerequisite for conferment of work charge status and the decision given by this court was upheld by Apex Court. 12. Accordingly, as this issue is no more res-integra that the conferment of work charge status is not dependent on an establishment being a work charge establishment and as 10 work charge status has been denied to the petitioner on this count only, therefore, the present petition is allowed. The orders under challenge are quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to confer upon the petitioner the benefit of work charge status on completion of the requisite number of years of service. Consequential benefits shall be in terms of the judgment in Surajmani’s case as modified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 06, 2026 (Vinod)