IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5670 of 2024 Decided on: 7th March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arvind Singh Guleria …..Petitioner Versus Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar H.P. Krishi Vishvavidyalaya Palampur .....Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Rana, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner essentially seeks a direction to the respondent-Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya (in short ‘respondent-University’) to confer work charge status upon him on completion of eight years of daily wage service. 2. According to the petitioner, he was engaged as Beldar on daily wage basis in the respondent-University w.e.f. 1995. He completed 240 days in each calendar year w.e.f. 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. - 2 - 1995. Services of the petitioner were regularized on 06.07.2008 as Beldar. Petitioner’s grievance is that he was entitled to work charge status on completion of his eight years of daily wage service, but this benefit has been wrongly denied to him by the respondent. Relief qua conferment of work charge status on completion of eight years of service has been claimed on the strength of the decision rendered in Sarwan Kumar Versus Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur2, as affirmed in Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya Versus Sarwan Kumar3, under the lead case State of HP and others Versus Surajmani and Anr.4 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that reply stands filed on 08.11.2024. The same is not on record, however, a copy thereof has been made available for perusal. 4. The only defence taken by the respondent in its reply filed on 08.11.2024 is that the decision in Sarwan Kumar’s2 case has not attained finality. That Special Leave 2 O.A.(D) No.404 of 2018, decided on 20.03.2019 3 CWP No.1396 of 2019, decided on 12.01.2023 4 LPA No.165 of 2021, decided alongwith connected matters on 12.01.2023 - 3 - Petition Diary No.28840 of 2023 against the aforesaid decision is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record copy of the decision rendered in The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Versus Surajmani & Anr.5. Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya Versus Sarwan Kumar6 was one of the matters connected and decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court alongwith the case of Surajmani5. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the writ petition be disposed of in terms of the directions issued in of the aforesaid decision. Relevant paras from which read as under:- “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. 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 5 Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, decided alongwith connected appeals on 06.02.2025 6 Civil Appeal No.1859 of 2025, decided alongwith connected appeals on 06.02.2025 - 4 - costs. 11. We also make it explicitly clear that the State in its endeavour of implementing the orders of the Tribunal, High Court or this Court, if having paid the amounts in excess, would be at liberty to take such steps as it deems fit without insisting for one time recovery. 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].” 5. In view of the fair stand taken by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment, this writ petition is disposed of in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Surajmani5 and Sarwan Kumar6. Respondent is directed to implement the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court therein in case of the petitioner by taking all consequential actions within six weeks from today. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 07, 2025 Judge R.Atal