1 2025:HHC:28180 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMP(M) No. 767 of 2025 & LPA No.541 of 2025 Decided on: 14.08.2025 State of H.P. and others ......applicants/appellants Versus Krishani Devi ...non-applicant/respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant/appellant: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) CMP(M) No. 767 of 2025 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by an affidavit of the official, delay of 207 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. LPA No.541 of 2025 2. The present Letters Patent Appeal which is barred by 207 days has been filed by the State against the judgment 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:28180 of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP No.6987 of 2023 titled Krishni Devi vs. State of H.P and others decided on 12.06.2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the wife of the deceased employee was allowed. 3. The learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 19.04.2023 and condoned the shortfall of the less number of days of 240 days for the year 1996, 2001 and 2002 and directed the State to confer work-charge status as well as consider the case for regularization in terms of the policy of the State within a period of two months with all consequential benefits. 4. The counsel for the State fairly points out that when the appeal had been filed, the matter was pending consideration before the Apex Court against the judgment of this Court in LPA No.165 of 2021 titled State of H.P. and others vs. Surajmani and others. 5. The appeal was filed on the ground that the said issue had not been finalized. Various orders in connected matters pending before the Apex Court have been appended 3 2025:HHC:28180 also in support of the said stand taken by the State. It is also now a matter of record that the Apex Court has decided the said issue in SLP(C) No.23016 of 2023 [Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025] titled The State of H.P. and others vs. Surajmani decided on 06.02.2025 and also further clarified and reiterated in an SLP (C) Diary No.11170 of 2024 titled State of H.P. and others vs. Janak Dev Sharma decided on 26.05.2025 arising out of CWP No.1180 of 2022 and therefore now the issue as such has attained finality. Otherwise also, the learned Single Judge had set aside the order only on the ground that for the benefit of regularization, the employee as such had a shortfall of the required 240 days for the 3 years in question i.e. 1996, 2001 and 2002 of 9, 24 and 11 days, respectively. 6. It was accordingly held while placing reliance upon the judgment in LPA No.645 of 2011 titled State of H.P and another vs. Keshav Ram decided on 30.08.2017, wherein similar relief was granted to condone and grant the benefit so that the Class IV employee working on daily wage basis in the 4 2025:HHC:28180 Forest Range, Arki from the year 1994 to 2010 could be given the said benefit. 7. Keeping in view the decision of the Coordinate Bench, we do not see any plausible reason to take a different view since the judgment stands covered by the observation of the Apex Court in the case of Surajmani (supra) whereby it has been specifically mentioned that the benefits would be notional. Relevant paras of the judgment reads as under: "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. 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…. 5 2025:HHC:28180 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]." 7(i). Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has 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:- "5. It is experienced that despite passing the judgment in Surajmani (supra) which is in rem, but in view of the separate orders passed by the High Court, several special leave petitions are being filed by the State. Considering the same, it is to be expressed that in our view, when a judgment in rem has been passed, it would apply mutatis mutandis in all cases having similar facts and filing separate special leave petitions is in futility. The State may take note of this fact and do the needful." 8. The present appeal is disposed of in the above terms, specially keeping in view the fact of the observations of the Apex Court in its subsequent order that the benefit would 6 2025:HHC:28180 only be notional in nature, with no arrears to be paid but the benefit of work charge status and the regularization thereafter subject to vacancy etc. would accrue. 9. In such circumstances, we do not issue notice to the respondent as it would be an exercise in futility for her to contest this matter. 10. Accordingly the appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice August 14 , 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (ankit) Judge