IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP Nos. 8790 and 8798 of 2025 Decided on: 29th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 8790 of 2025 Baldev Chand ....Petitioner Versus HPSEBL & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No.8798 of 2025 Krishan Chand ....Petitioner Versus HPSEBL & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Bonit Prakash, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms.  Bhawna Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Bhawna Sharma, Advocate, appearing vice Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, learned Counsel, appears 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes and waives service of notice on behalf of  the respondents in both the petitions. 2. These writ petitions have   been filed for grant of almost common relief, which has been extracted from CWP No.  8790 of 2025:­ “(i) That the respondents may be ordered to grant work charge status to the petitioner,  on completion of eight years of service,   service, with all benefits incidental thereof.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cases of the petitioners and the relief prayed for by them are     covered   under   decision   rendered   in  The   Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Nanak Chand & Ors.2  In the aforesaid case,  the respondent­Board had   contended   that     the   case   in   hand   was   distinct   from State of Himachal Pradesh   and Ors. Vs. Surajmani & Anr.3 as   in   the   respondent­Board,     work   charge establishment   was   abolished     in   1986,   therefore,   the directions     given   in  Suranmani3  cannot   be   applied   in   the 2 SLP(C) Nos. 10719-10720/2025, decided on 16.04.2025 3 Civil appeal No. 1595 of 2025, decided on 06.02.2025 2 respondent­Board.     The   Hon’ble   Apex   Court     rejected   the contentions   and   held   that   the   judgment   in    Surajmani3 squarely   applies     and   the   directions   issued   therein   shall applicable  mutatis   mutandis  to  Himachal   Pradesh   State Electricity Board  as well . Relevant   portion of the decision reads as under:­ “2. In counter to the said argument, in the counter affidavit, Standing   orders   of   the   Himachal   Pradesh   State Electricity Board Industrial Establishment framed in exercise of the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 have been shown whereby Clause 5(b) makes it clear that   the   Board   shall   have   the   following   class   of workmen   in   different   establishments. Clause   5(b) indicate   work   establishment   having   work   charged work   commission. The   said   fact   has   not   been controverted except to say in the affidavit that they have abolished the work charged establishment in the year1986. In the list of date also, it is stated that the work charge establishment has been revised in 1987. 3. Considering all these aspects, there is no reason to take   a   different   view   from   the   case   of   Surajmani (supra). The   operative   portion   of   the   judgment   of Surajmani is reproduced for ready reference : "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 3 Court   seeking   similar   relief. As   such,   the Respondents   shall   be   entitled   for   grant   of 'work­charged'   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 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 Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi [ (2006) 4 SCC 1]." 4. In   our   view,   the   judgment   of   Surajmani   squarely applies   and   the   said   directions   shall   be   applicable mutatis mutandis in the case of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board also.” 4. In   view   of   above,   respondents   are   directed   to consider the cases of the petitioners for grant of relief prayed for by them in light of decision rendered in  Nanak Chand2, within a period six weeks from today. The decision so taken be communicated to the petitioners. 4 The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 29, 2025 Rohit 5