1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3924 of 2023 Date of decision: 21.04.2025 Suman Kumari. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. &Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 5-State. : Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to confer work-charge status upon her deceased husband (Sh. Chander Shekhar), w.e.f. 01.01.2000, on completion of 10 years of continuous daily-wage service, in accordance with the decision rendered in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P.1. In essence, the petitioner seeks grant of family pension with effect from 20.06.2000, i.e. the date of death of her husband, along with all consequential benefits. 2. Facts of the case. 11994 Supl. (2) SCC 316 -2- 2(i). Petitioner’s husband, Sh. Chander Shekhar, was initially engaged as Beldar in the respondent-Public Works Department during the year 1989. He worked as daily waged Beldar w.e.f. 01.01.1990 to 31.03.1993. From 01.04.1993 to 20.06.2000, he worked as daily waged Work Inspector. It is an admitted position of the respondents that petitioner’s husband completed 10 years of daily waged service with 240 plus days in each calendar year w.e.f. 01.01.1990 to 31.12.1999. He died on 21.06.2000 in an accident while discharging his duties. 2(ii). Petitioner represented on 29.12.2015 and thereafter, on 20.02.2017, requesting the respondent- Department to grant work-charge status to her deceased husband retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.2000 to 21.06.2000, i.e. till the date of death of her husband. This relief was prayed in light of decision rendered in Mool Raj Upadhyaya1 case. The relief claimed by the petitioner is to earn pensionary benefits. 2(iii). Respondents have admitted in their reply that:- The aforesaid representations of the petitioner were received by them; The representations were examined by the -3- respondent-Department; Petitioner’s claim of her husband having rendered 10 years of daily waged service with 240 days & above in each calendar year w.e.f. 01.01.1990 till the date of his death, was verified to be correct as per the records. Accordingly, on 08.11.2017, respondent No.2- Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, Himachal Pradesh, recommended the case of the petitioner for conferring work-charge status upon her late husband w.e.f. 01.01.2000 and for grant of pensionary benefits in her favour by according necessary sanction/approval/relaxation w.r.t. medical fitness under Rule 54(iii) of CCS (Pension) Rules. 2(iv). Respondent No.1 through its office letter dated 10.05.2018 rejected the prayer of the petitioner with following reasoning:- “This matter has been examined in this department in consultation with Finance (Pension) Department. The Finance (Pension) Department has observed that in the instant case the department has not examined the matter with regards to grant of the benefit of conferment of work charge status in favour of late Sh. Chander Shekhar, Beldar (Prior to 15.5.2003) at its own level in the light of Apex Court ruling delivered in Mool Raj case. Besides, what is the justification for grant of work charge status in the present case after lapse of more than 18 years.Moreover, Smt.Suman Kumari W/o late Sh. Chander Shekhar (Beldar) had already been given appointment in Govt. department on compassionate grounds.” -4- Feeling aggrieved petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4(i). As already noticed, the facts are not in dispute. Petitioner’s late husband had completed more than 10 years of continuous service with minimum 240 days in each calendar year upto 31.12.1999. He died while in service after meeting an accident during the course of discharging his duties. Respondents in their reply, more particularly, office letter dated 08.11.2017 (Annexure R-II), have clearly admitted that Sh. Chander Shekhar-petitioner’s husband died on 21.06.2000 before the conferment of work-charge status upon him. After his death, work-charge status was not conferred upon him as it used to be conferred from prospective date, this recourse was not possible in case of petitioner's husband in view of his untimely death. However, the action of the respondents in conferring work-charge status prospectively upon the daily waged employees was set -5- aside in State of H.P. vs. Gehar Singh2. In the aforesaid case, automatic work-charge status was allowed to all workmen upon completion of 10 years of continuous daily waged service. 4(ii). The above being the admitted factual and legal position, it was for the respondents to have conferred work- charge status upon petitioner’s late husband. Instead of doing the duty cast upon them in law, the respondents compelled the petitioner to represent to them and then to move the Court for seeking the benefits which flowed to her late husband. 4(iii). The respondents have not denied that in similar circumstances, similar benefits have been granted to one Smt. Brahmi Devi by exercising the powers of relaxation w.r.t. medical fitness under Rule 54(iii) of CCS (Pension) Rules, in favour of deceased workmen/incumbent. 4(iv). At this stage, it will also be appropriate to make reference to The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Versus Surajmani & Anr.3, wherein in bunch of Special Leave Petitions, including the ones instituted by the 2Latest HLJ 2006 (SC) 363 3Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, decided alongwith connected civil appeals on 06.02.2025. -6- respondent-Public Works Department, the writ petitioners were held entitled for grant of work-charge status from the date of completion of requisite number of years of service, in light of dicta laid down in State of H.P. & Ors. Vs. Sh. Ashwani Kumar4 and the judgment in Mool Raj Upadhyaya1case. Relevant portion from the decision is extracted hereinafter:- “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) Regularisation of Muster-Roll/Daily-Wagers in Himachal Pradesh has been prepared by the Government of Himachal Pradesh and the same has been placed on record along with the supplementary affidavit of Shri K.J.B.V. Subramanyam dated 7-12-1992 in WP (C) No. 249 of 1988. xxx xxx xxx 4. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we modify the said scheme by substituting paragraphs 1 to 4 of the same by the following paragraphs: “(1) Daily-wage/muster-roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled, who have completed 10 years or more of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31-12- 1993, shall be appointed as work- charged employees with effect from 1-1- 1994 and shall be put in the time-scale of pay applicable to the corresponding 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 4Civil Appeal No.5753 of 2019 decided on 22.07.2019 -7- 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 wagesat 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 regularised in a phased manner on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability including physical fitness. On regularisation 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.” 8. However, in order to allay the apprehension of the State as expressed thereunder and to safeguard the interest of the State which otherwise would have burdened the exchequer with extra benefits being conferred on the employees who had not been regularly appointed, this Court has, as a succor to the State, restricted the claim or, in other words, modified the order of the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court by arriving at a conclusion that the petitioners/appellants therein would be entitled to the notional benefits of the order passed by the Tribunal and 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 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. -8- However, we hold that the relief in the present appeals will be limited to notional benefits as explained in paragraph 3 and 4 of Ashwani Kumar’s (Supra) case in Civil Appeal No(s). 5753 of 2019 and the present appeals stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.” 4(v). In view of above, the reasons for rejection given by the respondents in their office letter dated 31.05.2018, cannot be sustained. It may also be mentioned that petitioner’s employment on compassionate grounds is not a bar in itself for examining her prayer for conferment of work- charge status upon her deceased husband in accordance with law. The latter is an independent claim based upon service rendered by petitioner’s husband. 4. In view of above, the present writ petition is allowed by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for grant of work-charge status upon her late husband-Sh. Chander Shekhar on completion of 10 years of daily waged service in accordance with law laid down in Mool Raj Upadhyaya1 case read with Surajmani3 case and also keeping in view the observations made hereto above. This exercise be carried out within a period of six weeks. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner. In case, upon consideration, petitioner is held entitled to -9- consequential benefits, including family pension, the same be released in her favour. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 21st April, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)