IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.3728 of 2019 Decided on: 25.03.2025 Devki Nand Chauhan ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Prem P. Chauhan & Ms. Tara Devi, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs: “(a) to issue a writ of certiorari or direction in nature thereof, quashing the impugned order dated 17/03/2011 being Annexure P-8 of the writ petition, as unconstitutional and illegal and contrary to the law; (b) to issue a writ of mandamus, appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof, directing the respondents to grant regularization/work charge status to the petitioner on the post of Store Clerk wef 01/01/2001 with all consequential benefits; 2 2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that petitioner was appointed as daily wage Beldar by respondents w.e.f. 01.01.1991. He was designated as daily wage Store Clerk w.e.f 26.02.1993. Since, the services of the petitioner were not regularized by the respondents till 2003, the petitioner approached the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”), by way of OA No.2799 of 2003. On abolition of the Tribunal, the OA filed by the petitioner came to be transferred to this Court as CWP(T) No.9682 of 2008. During the pendency of said petition, the services of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f. 26.12.2006 and as a result CWP(T) No.9682 of 2008 came to be disposed of vide order dated 18.12.2010 in following terms: “The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of subsequent developments the petition does not survive inasmuch as the petitioner has been regularised w.e.f. 26.12.2006 against his claim of regularisation w.e.f. 25.12.2001. He has submitted that in these circumstances, the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to petitioner to file appropriate representation to the Secretary (PWD) to the Govt. of H.P. regarding his grievance. Prayer not opposed. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate representation to the Secretary (PWD) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh 3 within a period of one month from today along with a copy of this judgment and in case such representation is filed, then the Secretary (PWD) shall decide the representation in further three months from the date of receipt of representation with speaking order. The personal hearing to the petitioner shall also be granted by the Secretary (PWD) in case the petitioner would like to present his claim personally. The petition stands disposed of.” 3. Thereafter, petitioner submitted a representation to the Secretary(PWD), Government of Himachal Pradesh on 17.01.2011 detailing his grievance therein with prayer as under: “In view of above submissions, it is therefore most respectfully requested that my case for grant of work charge status/regularisation on the post of Store Clerk may kindly be considered with effect from 01/01/2001 with all the consequential benefits in the interest of Justice. For this act of kindness, I shall remain ever grateful to your kind honour.” 4. The representation of the petitioner was decided by the Principal Secretary(PWD) vide office order dated 17.03.2011, whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected and his regularization w.e.f. 26.12.2006 was said to be in accordance with rules. Hence, this petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 4 6. The prayer made in the representation of the petitioner Annexure P-7 reveals that the petitioner had requested for grant of work charge status or regularization on the post of Store Clerk w.e.f. 01.01.2001 i.e. on completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service on the said post. 7. The impugned order Annexure P-8 passed by Principal Secretary (PWD) does not refer to the representation of petitioner for grant of work charge status on completion of 8 years of daily wage continuous service and in result no finding has been returned on such claim of the petitioner. Since, the order Annexure P-8 has not dealt with a substantive claim presented by the petitioner, the same cannot be sustained. 8. Further, it is settled now that daily wage employee of the State Government is entitled to be granted work charge status on completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service. It has been so held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh & others vs. Surajmani & another. In view of such settled position, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of grant of work charge status on completion of 8 years continuous daily wage service on the post of Store Clerk. It is evident from the contents of order Annexure P-8 that the respondents have considered the 5 engagement of petitioner as Store Munshi (Store Clerk) w.e.f. 01.01.1994. In light of such admission, the petitioner is held entitled for grant of work charge status on completion of 8 years w.e.f. 01.01.1994. 9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Order Annexure P-8 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant work charge status to the petitioner on the post of Store Munshi( Store Clerk)immediately on completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service on the said post after 01.01.1994. 10. The petitioner had earlier approached the State Administrative Tribunal in the year 2003. The petition so filed by the petitioner was disposed of on 18.12.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation and was decided vide order Annexure P-8 dated 17.03.2011. The instant petition was filed by the petitioner in the month of November 2012. Thus, no delay or laches can be attributable to the petitioner and for such reason he will be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing from grant of work charge status to him from due date. 11. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of along with pending application(s), if any. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge March 25, 2025 (vt)