2025:HHC:6066 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5783 of 2024 Date of Decision: 13.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sh. Bhola Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. C.N.Singh, Mr. Devender K. Sharma and Mr. Anshul Gandhi, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “ i). Issue writ of certiorari, mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit by directing the respondents department to grant work charge status /regularization in favour of the petitioner w.e.f.1.1.2001 in terms of the policy as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court as mentioned supra, with all consequential benefits i.e. seniority, pay fixation and fixation of retrial benefits within time bound manner and same may kindly be ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner within time bound manner; ii). Issue writ of certiorari, mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction as this Hon’ble 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:6066 Court deems fit, by directing the respondents department to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of service pension etc. benefits and release the same in favour of the petitioner by counting his regular service w.e.f.1.1.2001 to 28.02.2021 in terms of the above prayer clause alongwith 12% interest.” 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, are that the petitioner herein was engaged as Beldar on daily wage basis in the year, 1993 in the Department of Irrigation and Public Health, Division Karsog, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. In the year 1998, respondent-Department framed fresh regularization policy for regularization of the daily wage employees after their having completed 8 years daily wage service. In the year 2007, services of the petitioner were regularized after his having completed more than 14 years of daily wage service and subsequently, he was granted work charge status after his having completed 10 years daily wage service w.e.f.01.01.2003 in terms of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1994 Supp.(2) SCC316. Since after his regularization in terms of judgment passed in Mool Raj Upadhyaya case, Government of Himachal Pradesh by way of policy decision decided to confer work charge status to daily wage employees after their having completed 8 years daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year, petitioner also approached the respondents to extend the similar 3 2025:HHC:6066 relief, but since such plea of him never came to be considered by the respondents, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinabove. 3. Reply filed by the respondents, if perused in its entirety, nowhere disputes facts, as have been taken note hereinabove. Respondents have categorically admitted factum with regard to petitioner’s having been conferred work charge status after his having completed ten years daily wage service w.e.f.01.01.2003. However, attempt has been made to defeat the claim of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status from the date of his having completed eight years daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year on the ground that since petitioner herein already stood conferred work charge status w.e.f.01.01.2003 in terms of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya case(supra) prior to promulgation of the policy of 1999, which was subsequently reiterated on 6th May, 2000, thereby making provision of conferment of work charge status after completion of eight years daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year, there was no occasion, if any, to accede to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status from the date of his having completed eight years daily wage service. Respondents have further 4 2025:HHC:6066 attempted to defeat the claim of the petitioner on the ground that in view of specific order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gehar Singh’s case, regularization of all daily wage employees done from prospective effect in terms of regularization policy issued in the years 1998, 1999 and 2000 were superseded and consequently granted work charge status retrospectively immediately on completion of ten years service, but in case at this stage prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is accepted, it may open pandora box. 4. Though, in para-13 of the reply, respondents have admitted that persons, namely Sh. Lekh Raj and Devi Singh, who are similarly situate to the petitioner have been granted similar relief, as has been claimed by the petitioner, but yet relief prayed for by the petitioner is being denied on the ground that after his being regularized in terms of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya case, petitioner is estopped from claiming work charge status after his having completed eight years service in terms of policy of 1999,which was further reiterated on 6th May, 2000. 5. In similar facts and circumstances, Principal Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition bearing No.1655 of 202, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Dharam Chand now deceased through his L.Rs Matho Devi filed by State of Himachal Pradesh, laying therein challenge to order dated 5 2025:HHC:6066 12.04.2018 passed by Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, which at relevant time, in similar facts and circumstances issued direction to the respondents to grant relief to the petitioner in that case, which is being claimed in the instant proceedings. It would be apt to take note para Nos. 1 to 11 of afore judgment herein blow:- “ 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 12.04.2018, passed by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal [hereafter referred to as the “Tribunal”]. For convenience, the operative directions issued by the Tribunal are extracted below: “4. The learned vice counsel for the applicant submits at the very outset that the case of the applicant is squarely covered under judgment dated 23.04.2015, Annexure A-4, rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 1044 of 2015, Jai Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. and order dated 28th November, 2017, Annexure A 5, passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 2766 of 2015, Sh. Lekh Raj Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 5. The learned Deputy Advocate General states that subject to verification of records, if it is found that the applicant is similarly situate as the petitioner/applicant in the aforesaid judgment/order, his case shall also be considered accordingly.” 2. Concededly, the petitioners have not passed any order in terms of the directions issued by the Tribunal. Instead, they have approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition after a delay of nearly 2 ½ years. 3. Mr Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, submits that even before the respondent approached the Tribunal, he had been accorded relief in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P., 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316. 3.1 In support of this plea, our attention has been drawn by Mr. Rattan to the office order dated 20.03.2008. 6 2025:HHC:6066 3.2 A perusal of the said order shows that insofar as the respondent was concerned, he had been granted retrospective regularization from 01.01.2003. It is, thus, the submission of the petitioners that the respondent cannot now wake up and seek regularization w.e.f. 01.01.2001. 4. The record shows that the respondent was engaged as a daily wage worker on 09.11.1992. He joined the regular post on 16.01.2007. 4.1 Concededly, the respondent was given retrospective regularization from 01.01.2003. As noticed above, the regularization was made effective from 01.01.2003 in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case. 5. At that stage, the regularization policy of the petitioners prescribed 10 years of service with a minimum period of 240 days of work in each year. 5.1 There can be no cavil with the fact that in the year 2000, a policy change took place, whereby the above-mentioned qualifying period was reduced to 8 years. It is in this context that the respondent sought regularization w.e.f. 01.01.2001. 6. The Tribunal rightly noticed the judgment of the coordinate bench of this Court in CWP No.1044 of 2015, titled Jai Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. dated 23.04.2015, and its own order dated 28.11.2017, passed in OA No.2766 of 2015, titled Sh. Lekh Raj vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 7. It is not in dispute that the Special Leave Petition (SLP) preferred qua Jai Singh’s case, i.e., SLP(C) 10712/2016, titled State of H.P. & others vs. Jai Singh was dismissed via the order dated 21.04.2017. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that the judgment in Lek Raj’s case was implemented. We may also note another judgment on a similar issue i.e., LPA No.19 of 2023, titled State of H.P. vs. Nek Rak & others, wherein a Beldar, appointed in 1993, was accorded the same relief via the judgment dated 10.03.2023. The SLP(C) No.36702/2023 preferred in Nek Ram’s case was dismissed on 05.01.2024. 9. Given this position, we are of the view that the argument qua delay does not hold water. The petitioners were directed by the Tribunal only to pass an order in terms of the judgment in Jai Singh’s case and the Tribunal’s own order in Lek Raj’s case. The petitioners sat over it and approached this Court after nearly 2 ½ years. 10. In the ordinary course, we would have directed the petitioners to pass an order in terms of the judgment of the 7 2025:HHC:6066 Tribunal. However, having regard to the state of law and the delay involved, we are inclined to hold that the respondent should be regularized w.e.f. 01.01.2001. 11. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.” 6. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid judgment passed by Principal Division Bench of this Court that respondents have already implemented the policy of 2000 in cases where daily wage employees stood regularized or conferred work charge status after their having completed 10 years service in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya case. Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court taking note of change of policy, whereby daily wage employees, who have been granted work charge status from the date of their having completed eight years daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year, has already rejected the plea of the respondent-State, which is now being sought to be taken in the case at hand to defeat the rightful claim of the petitioner. 7. It would be apt to take note of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.19 of 2023 (Annexure P-8), titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Nek Ram and others, decided on 10.03.2023, wherein Division Bench of this Court, while condemning the practice of filing frivolous appeals by the respondent-State, directed the respondent-State to adhere to and implement the H.P. State Litigation Policy 2011. At this stage, it would 8 2025:HHC:6066 be profitable to reproduce para Nos. 7 to 12 of afore judgment herein below:- “8. Noticeably, it was conceded by the appellants herein before the learned writ Court that the case of the respondent was covered by the ratio of the judgment laid down in Gian Singh’s case (supra) as is evident from para-14 of the impugned judgment which reads as under: “14. In the present case also, the parties are ad-idem on one issue at least that regularization policy dated 3.4.2000 was applicable to the petitioner. Reference can be made to the averments made in sub para (B) of para-3 of the preliminary submissions and also para (B) of para (1) of reply on merits of the reply filed on behalf of official respondents, which reads as under: “(B). That the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Tauni Devi Division vide his order No.PW/TDD/EA-II/2006-9669-15 dated 22.11.2006 (copy of order is attached as Annexure R-1), the petitioner was offered regularization upon completion of 8 years of service with prospective effect under the Govt. regularization policy dated 30.04.2000.....” 8. It is in this background that we have expressed our anguish regarding the filing of the instant appeal by the State that too without there being any legal or factual grounds whatsoever to assail the judgment. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated above, we find no merit in the instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application, if any. 10. The State would be well-advised not to file such kind of frivolous appeals thereby clogging the dockets of this Court and would be better advised to implement the H.P. State Litigation Policy, 2011, as has been repeatedly directed by this Court in its various decisions, so as to ensure that there is no docket explosion at least at the instance and at the behest of the State Government. 11. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the judgments passed by this Court in CWP No.2646 of 2015 case titled Sat Dev Singh vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 30.07.2019 and CWP No.1314 of 2016 case titled Nigma Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 30.08.2022. 12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh for issuance of necessary instructions for the implementation of the H.P. State Litigation Policy, 2011.” 9 2025:HHC:6066 8. Though, vide aforesaid judgment direction was issued to the Chief Secretary, Government of Himachal Pradesh to issue necessary instructions to all the Departments not to indulge in frivolous litigation, especially when issue as involved in the case at hand already stands settled upto the Hon'ble Apex Court, but yet respondent-Department are rejecting the rightful claim of daily wage employees including the petitioner by not extending similar benefit of work charge status from the date of their having completed eight years service with 240 days in each calendar year. 9. 9. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly same is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status from the date, he completed eight years daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year from the date of his initial engagement i.e. 01.01.2001 and thereafter, consequential benefits be given to him restricting the period three years prior to filing of the petition. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 13,2025 (shankar)