IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6854 of 2024 Decided on: 18th August, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Neter Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Bhavya Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Heard. 2. Facts:- 2(i). Reference Case No.115 of 2006 instituted by the petitioner was decided on 10.09.2010. Petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service with retrospective effect, i.e. from the year 2001 with seniority and continuity, but without back wages. Petitioner was still not allowed to join duties in terms of the award. It was after the issuance of notice by the Labour Officer upon the respondent for implementation of the award and recommending its 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 prosecution that the petitioner was permitted to join his duties on 09.08.2011. In this background, petitioner moved application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 30.05.2013, seeking wages for 10 months and 09 days alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. 2(ii). The application was disposed of by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 26.09.2015 with direction to the respondents to pay full wages to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.10.2010 to 08.08.2011 at the rates fixed for daily wagers by the Government from time to time within three months, failing which the same was to carry interest @ 9% per annum. 2(iii). Neter Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others2 was instituted by the petitioner seeking applicability of ratio of the decision in Rakesh Kumar Versus State of H.P. and others3. The said original application was disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the above-referred decision with further observation that in case the petitioner is found to be similarly situated as the petitioner in the aforesaid decision, 2 O.A. No.38 of 2015, decided by the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal on 05.03.2015 3 CWP No.2735 of 2010, decided on 28.07.2010 3 he shall be granted the same benefits without any discrimination. 2(iv). Pursuant to above decision, respondents passed consideration order on 22.12.2015 (Annexure P-3), rejecting the case of the petitioner primarily on the ground that Forest Department was not a work charged establishment, therefore, petitioner’s claim for conferment of work charge status on completion of eight years of service in terms of Rakesh Kumar3 was not tenable. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has instituted this writ petition for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i) That the respondents be directed to hold the petitioner entitled to full back wages taking into account his date of work charge status i.e. 2.4.2002. ii) That the respondents may be directed to pay the arrears of pay full wages to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.10.2010 to 8.8.2011 along with interest @ 9% per annum. iii) That the Annexure P-3 dated 22.12.2015 may kindly be quashed and set aside. iv) That the petitioner may kindly be granted the benefits in a similar situated persons in LPA 165 of 2019 in the interest of justice and equity.” 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner shall be restricting his prayer for conferment of work charge status upon him on completion of requisite years of service in accordance with The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 4 Versus Surajmani & Anr.4 as also against the rejection order dated 22.12.2015. The present petition, therefore, has been heard only to the above-restricted extent. 4. Respondents in their reply filed on 24.08.2024 have primarily taken the defence of pendency of SLP (Diary) No.21292 of 2023 before the Hon’ble Apex Court against the decision rendered in State of HP and Others Versus Surajmani and Anr.5. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the aforesaid Special Leave Petition now stands decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore, the case of the petitioner shall be considered afresh in accordance with the decision rendered in Surajmani4. 5. In view of above, the impugned order dated 22.12.2015 (Annexure P-3) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Surajmani4 by passing appropriate orders, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 4 Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, decided alongwith connected civil appeals on 06.02.2025 5 LPA No.165 of 2021, decided alongwith connected matters on 12.01.2023 5 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 18, 2025 Judge Mukesh