( 2025:HHC:28994 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No : 91 of 2025 Reserved on: 14.08.2025 Announced on: 27.08.2025 ____________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Appellants Versus Man Singh ….Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. No. For the appellants: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: None. Ranjan Sharma, Judge State Authorities, being the appellants, have come up before this Court, assailing the Judgment dated 12.12.2023 [referred to as Impugned Judgment] passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP No 7702 of 2022, In re: Man Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, in directing the State Authorities to grant the work charged status to the Respondent- writ petitioner [Man Singh], w.e.f 01.01.2002 from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 2 - waged service, countable from 01.01.1994, with all consequential benefits. FACTUAL MATRIX BEFORE WRIT COURT: 2. Respondent-writ petitioner, Man Singh, filed CWP No. 7702 of 2022, with the following relief:- “(i). That the respondents may be ordered to grant work charge status to the petitioner from the date he completed 8 years’ service with all benefits incidental thereof.” 2(i). In CWP No. 7702 of 2022, the Respondent -writ petitioner had set up a case that he was engaged as workman [Class-IV] on 01.01.1994 on daily wage basis with in Parvati/Wildlife Forest Division, Kullu, and he worked continuously with 240 days from the year 1994 and though he was regularized on 01.09.2007. For claiming work charged status, from the date of completion of 8 years continuous [w.e.f. 01.01.2002] he filed CWP No 9518 of 2012 and this petition was disposed of representation on 06.11.2012 and the same was rejected by the State Authorities on 23.12.2015 [Annexure R-4 in writ file]. Feeling aggrieved, he filed another petition, CWP No. 7702 of 2022 for claiming regularization/work-charged ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 3 - status on completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service with all consequential benefits. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, in terms of Impugned Judgment dated 12.12.2023, by directing the State Authorities-Appellants to accord the work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years continuous daily wage service, with restricted consequential benefits for 3 years prior to filing of the writ petition. 2(ii). In reply, before writ Court, the Appellants- State Authorities admitted the factual matrix stating, that the writ petitioner worked continuously with 240 days in each calendar year from 1994 and having rendered more than 13 years of daily waged services he was regularized as Forest Worker [Class-IV] w.e.f. 01.09.2007 as per regularization policy notified by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Reply-Affidavit stated that case of petitioner is neither covered for regularization nor for grant of work-charged status as per policy of State Government and the directions passed by the Courts from time to time. It was ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 4 - further averred that in earlier round of litigation and in CWP No.9518 of 2012, titled as Man Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others and the orders dated 06.11.2012 passed therein, the matter was examined in the light of the judgment in CWP No 2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others along with connected matters, decided on 28.07.2010, but since this judgement was stayed in SLP (C) No. 8830-8860 of 2011 therefore, no action was taken till the said SLP was ultimately disposed of on 15.01.2015. After the decision of SLP, the State Authorities i.e. Additional Chief Secretary [Forests] constituted a committee to examine as to whether the Forest Department has work-charge establishment or not. Based on recommendations of the Committee, the State Authorities took a decision on 24.09.2015 [Annexure R-3] that the Forest Department is not a work charge establishment and by relying on this decision, the claim for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years continuous daily wage ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 5 - service was rejected on 23.12.2015 [Annexure R-4]. In this background that the claim of the Respondent- writ petitioner for work charge status was denied by the State Authorities. IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 12.12.2023 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE: 3. Taking into account the material on record, Learned Single Judge passed the Impugned Judgment on 12.12.2023, entitling the Respondent-writ petitioner for work-charged status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service [from 01.01.2002] and by giving restricted consequential benefits for 3 years prior to filing the writ petition, in the following terms:- “11. In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant work charge status to the petitioner from the date, he had completed eight years of service on daily wage basis in terms of the decision given by this Court in Ashwani Kumar’s case supra. However, benefits consequent to conferment of work charge status in terms of the instant judgment shall be restricted to three years ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 6 - period prior to filing of petition.” CHALLENGE TO IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IN INSTANT APPEAL: 4. In instant Intra-Court Appeal, the State Authorities have assailed the Impugned Judgment dated 12.12.2023, on the grounds, firstly, that the Learned Single Judge had ignored the pleadings and therefore, the judgment being perverse was liable to be set-aside; and secondly, the issue regarding conferment of work-charged status on completion of 8 years of daily-wage service, which was the subject matter in LPA No.165 of 2021, State of Himachal Pradesh & Others versus Surajmani and another has not attained finality as the decision has been assailed by the State Authorities before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 23016 of 2023, In re: State of Himachal Pradesh & Others vs Surajmani and another which was pending ; and thirdly, in terms of the Government decision dated 24.09.2015, [Annexure R-3], the Appellant [Forest Department] did not have a work-charged establishment and therefore, impugned judgment granting work-charged status ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 7 - was erroneous; and fourthly, the grant of work charge status was contrary to the judgment in the case of Jaswant Singh and others versus Union of India and Others, (1979) 4 SCC 440 ; and fifthly, the directions for granting work charge status was not covered by judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Others,1994 Supp (2) SCC 316 and the judgment in case of Rakesh Kumar vs State of HP & Others [CWP No.2735of 2010] and lastly, the Impugned Judgment granting restricted consequential benefits for 3 years prior to the filing of writ petitioner, upon grant of work charged status, was erroneous, being contrary to the mandate of Law, in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh versus Surajmani and other connected matters [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025 decided on 06.02.2025]. 5. Heard, Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Learned Deputy Advocate General for appellants-State. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 03.01.2025, in instant proceedings, though the Respondent-writ petitioner ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 8 - was served but he chose not to appear in the instant proceedings. MATTER IN ISSUE COVERED BY JUDGMENT IN SURAJMANI [CIVIL APPEAL No. 1595 OF 2025] DECIDED ON 06.02.2025: 6. Though the issue involved in the instant appeal is no longer res integra, in view of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Himachal Pradesh & Others versus Surajmani and Another [Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025] and other connected matters, decided on 06.02.2025, yet, at the insistence of the Learned State Counsel this Court proceeds to adjudicate the instant appeal, at this stage itself. ANALYSIS OF GROUNDS IN LPA AND THE CONTENTIONS RAISED: 7. First contention of Learned State Counsel for the appellants is that the Impugned Judgment dated 12.12.2023 passed by ignoring the pleadings is liable to be set- aside. The above contention is misconceived, for the reason, that the Impugned Judgment takes into account the pleadings, revealing factual matrix ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 9 - that though he was engaged as a daily wager in 1994 and was regularized after more than 13 years on 01.09.2007, yet, he has a right to be considered and granted the work charged status from the date of completion of 8 years of daily waged service, in the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs Gehar Singh (2007) 12 SCC 43 and the judgement in CWP No.2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others along with connected matters; and was reiterated in CWP No. 3111 of 2016, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs Ashwani Kumar, mandating that for conferment of work charge status neither the work charge establishment was a pre- requisite nor posts were required and even such establishment becoming non-existent or its conversion would not stand in the way of granting work charged status. The principle conferring work charge status was reiterated by this Court in LPA No. 165 of 2021, State of Himachal Pradesh vs Surajmani ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 10 - and another and based on these principles, Learned Single Judge directed the State Authorities to grant work-charged status to the Respondent-writ petitioner from the date of completion of 8 years continuous daily-wage service w.e.f 01.01.2002 and in these circumstances, the Impugned Judgment passed after taking into account the material on record and after appreciating the factual and legal matrix, does not warrant any interference, in instant proceedings. 8. Second contention of Learned State Counsel is that issue regarding conferment of work-charged status from the date of completion of 8 years of daily waged service, decided in LPA No. 165 of 2021, State of HP & Others versus Surajmani and another, has not attained finality as the State Authorities had filed SLP (C) No 23016 of 2023, which is pending before the Honble Supreme Court. Though on the face value, this contention appears to be attractive but events subsequent to filing of instant appeal indicates that this contention does not hold good any more. The present Letters ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 11 - Patent Appeal was filed along with an application for condonation of delay on 18.06.2024 and the matter was listed on 29.10.2024, when, notice was issued to the non-applicant/respondent-writ petitioner but despite service, he chose not to appear before this Court on 03.01.2025 and even on 12.03.2025 and accordingly, the delay was condoned and the LPA was finally taken up for adjudication at his stage. However, on query by this Court, Learned State Counsel informs that the SLP (C) No.23016 of 2023 [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025], In re: State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr vs Surajmani and other connected cases, stands decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 06.02.2025, entitling the daily wagers for work charged status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily- wage service. Since, the SLP in case of Surajmani [supra] stands decided, therefore, Impugned Judgment dated 12.12.2023, directing the appellants to confer work-charge status to the Respondent-writ petitioner herein from the date of completion of 8 years of ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 12 - daily wage service [w.e.f. 01.01.2002], does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 9. Third contention of Learned State Counsel is that the Appellant-Forest Department does not have a work-charged establishment and therefore, the work charge status cannot be extended to the Respondent- writ petitioner. Before adverting to this contention, it is necessary to have a recap of the concept of “work charge status”, in case of daily wagers serving in various departments throughout the State {including the Appellant-Forest Department} CONCEPT OF WORK CHARGE STATUS IN STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH: 9(i). Notably, in the State of Himachal Pradesh there were hundreds of daily wage workers who were engaged and had rendered prolonged service in peculiar geographical and topographical conditions of the State. In recognition of the prolonged daily wage service, the State Government formulated a “scheme for the betterment of skilled and unskilled daily wage/muster-roll workers in all government ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 13 - departments” by putting them in the time scale of pay as applicable to corresponding lowest grade in the government. Upon grant of time scale, these daily wagers were termed as “work charge employees.” The aforesaid scheme was approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs State of Himachal Pradesh (1994) Supp (2) SCC 316, mandating that daily wage/muster-roll workers were to be appointed as work charged employees, in the time scale of pay applicable to corresponding lowest grade in the government from the date they complete the 10 years continuous daily wage service. Later on, the State Authorities notified a policy on 03.04.2000 for conferring work charge status to the daily wagers on completion of 8 years of continuous service as on 31.3.2000 and this policy remained in vogue till issuance of another policy on 09.06.2004. In backdrop of these policies, the issue as to which of the daily wagers would be governed by the policy of 03.04.2000 was adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gauri Dutt & ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 14 - Others vs State of HP, Latest HLJ 2008 [HP] 366, mandating that those daily wagers who had completed one year of continuous service with {240 days service} during the year 1993 or prior to 31.12.1993 would be granted work charged status from the date they complete 10 years of continuous service in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra) whereas, those daily wagers who were engaged /appointed on or after 01.01.1994 and had rendered continuous service thereafter were to be governed by 8 years policy by granting work-charge status from the date they complete 8 years of continuous daily wage service. LAW OF THIS COURT ON CONCEPT OF WORK CHARGE STATUS IS ALSO PARI-MATERIA TO DECISION IN SURAJMANI: 9(ii). In plethora of judgments, the daily wagers have been held entitled for work charge status, in time scale of pay as is admissible to corresponding category of employees on completion of requisite 8 years of daily waged service irrespective of the fact ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 15 - as to whether work charge establishment exists or not in the case of Pritam Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh, CWPOA No.7497 of 2020, decided on 29.7.2024, in the following terms:- “21. With respect to ground taken by the respondents Department that Department is not having work-charged establishment and, thus, benefit of period of service as a work charged employee cannot be extended to the petitioner, it is apt to record that in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case an affidavit was filed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, formulating a Scheme for granting work charged status to all daily-waged employees, serving in the State of Himachal Pradesh, in all Departments, irrespective of the fact that Department is/was having work-charged establishment or not. 22. In Gauri Dutt’s case, it has been held that the scheme formulated in Mool Raj Upadhayaya case is applicable to daily-waged employees working in any department of the state of Himachal Pradesh and the employees, who are not governed by the directions given in Mool Raj Upadhayay’s case, shall be governed by a Scheme framed by the State in this ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 16 - regard and it has also been observed that granting of work-charged status would mean that an employee would get regular scale of pay. 23. Upholding the order passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 10.5.2018, in CWP No. 3111 of 2016, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ashwani Kumar, has pronounced that work- charged establishment is not a prerequisite for conferment of work-charged status nor conversion of work-charged employee into regular employee would make such establishment non-existent. 24. Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019, titled as State of H.P. vs. Ashwani Kumar, preferred by the State in Ashwani Kumar’s case has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 22.07.2019. Similarly, SLP (C) No. 8830-8869 of 2011 preferred by the State in Rakesh Kumar’s case also stands dismissed by the Supreme Court on 15.01.2015. 25. Term “work-charge”, in Himachal Pradesh, is used in different context. A person, working on daily-waged basis, before his regularization, is granted work- charged status on completion of specified number of years as daily wager and effect thereof is that thereafter non-completion of 240 days in a calendar year would ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 17 - not result into his ouster from the service or debar him from getting the benefit of length of service for that particular year. Normally, work-charged status is conferred upon a daily-wager, on accrual of his right for regularization, on completion of prescribed period of service, but for non-regularization is for want of regular vacancy in the department or for any other just and valid reason. Therefore, it is a period interregnum daily-wage service and regularization, which is altogether different form the temporary establishment of work charge, as discussed in the judgment of the Apex Court relied upon by the State and, for practice in Himachal Pradesh, work- charged status is not conferred upon the person employed in a project but upon such daily-wage workers, who are to be continued after particular length of service for availability of work but without regularization for want of creation of post by Government for his regularization /regular appointment. Therefore, work is always available in such cases and the charge of a daily wager is created thereon to avoid his disengagement for reasons upon which a daily-wager can be dispensed with from service. 26. On conferment of work-charged status, sword of disengagement, hanging on the ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 18 - neck of workmen, is removed on completion of specified period of daily-waged service, as thereafter instead of daily-wage, the employee would get regular pay-scale and would be entitled to other consequential benefits for which a daily-waged employee is not entitled. 27. In response to plea that work- charged establishment does not exist in the respondent Department, learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred pronouncements of this High Court in cases CWPOA No. 5748 of 2019, titled Man Singh Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others; CWPOA No. 52 of 2019, titled Beli Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another; CWPOA No. 5566 of 2019, titled as Reema Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others; and CWPOA No. 5660 of 2019, titled Ghanshyam Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others; LPA No. 151 of 2021, titled State of HP Vs. Beli Ram, decided on 09.08.2023; CWPOA No. 5554 of 2019, titled Daulat Ram vs. State of HP and others; CWPOA No.6468 of 2020 titled Uggam Ram vs. State of HP and others decided on 09.11.2023; and CWPOA No. 6151 of 2020 titled Rashid Mohammed vs. State of HP and others decided on 13.06.2024; wherein similar plea of respondent-State did not find favour of the Court. ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 19 - 28. According to pronouncement in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case, clarified in Gauri Dutt’s case, work charge status was to be conferred irrespective of existence of work charge stablishment. The said fact has not been considered in Rakesh Kumar’s case. In fact, in Rakesh Kumar’s case, this issue was not adjudicated but without considering Mool Raj’s case and without assigning any reason, a passing observation was made. Whereas this issue has been adjudicated and decided in subsequent judgment in Ashwani Kumar’s case. Therefore, observations made on this issue in Rakesh Kumar’s case are not binding especially when Civil Appeal in Ashwani Kumar’s case has been dismissed by Supreme Court. Therefore, abolition or non-existence of work charge establishment in the respondent- Department has no effect on the rights of petitioner for conferment of work-charged status after completion of 8 years in terms of Policy of the Government as well as verdict of Rakesh Kumar’s case. 29. For conferment of work-charged status, work-charged establishment in the Department is not prerequisite. The same has also been affirmed by the Principal Division Bench of this Court in judgment dated 9.8.2023 passed in LPA No 151 of 2021, titled as State ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 20 - of Himachal Pradesh versus Beli Ram also.” 9(iii). Even, the issue regarding conferment of work charge status to daily wagers on completion of 8 years continuous service stands adjudicated by this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar [CWP No. 2735 of 2010, against which SLP (C) No. 8830-8869 of 2011 on 15.01.2015] was also dismissed. After dismissal of SLP, State Authorities took a decision on 24.09.2015, [Annexure R-3, in writ proceedings] that the Forest Department does not have a work charge establishment and this decision cannot be made the basis to negate the right of Respondent -writ petitioner for work charge status, which has accrued in terms of the judgement/mandate of law in the case of Mool Raj Upadhayaya, Gehar Singh, Gauri Dutt and Rakesh Kumar (supra) and the affidavit/undertaking to implement the scheme for betterment of daily wagers of all the departments, by granting them better pay, in time scale of pay as was given to corresponding category of regular employees and by terming such daily wagers as ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 21 - work charged employees. Even, the decision dated 24.09.2015 cannot operate retrospectively so as take away the right for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous service in favour of the respondent-writ petitioner. The matter regarding grant of work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of daily wage service came up before the Division Bench of this Court, in CWP No. 3111 of 2016, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs Ashwani Kumar whereby, for conferment of work charge status there was neither the need for work charge establishment nor its cessation or abolition would make any difference and even there was no requirement for creation or availability of a post for conferment of such work charge status. Feeling aggrieved, the State Authorities assailed the judgement passed by the Division Bench of this Court before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs Ashwani Kumar, [Civil Appeal No 5753 of 2019, decided on 22.07.2019], and while deciding the Civil Appeal, ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 22 - the directions passed by Learned State Administrative Tribunal, which were upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3111 of 2016, for granting “all consequential benefits” was modified by entitling the daily wagers for work charge status with “notional benefits” only. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reinforced the directions in case of Ashwani Kumar [supra], in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh versus Surajmani [supra], [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, SLP (C) 23016 of 2023, arising from LPA No. 165 of 2021, decided on 06.02.2025], entitling the daily wagers for work charge status with notional benefits only. In above backdrop and in the light of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Mool Raj Upadhyaya, Gehar Singh, Ashwani Kumar and Surajmani [supra] and the judgments of this Court in the case of Gauri Dutt, Rakesh Kumar and in the case of Pritam Singh {CWPOA No 7497 of 2020, decided on 29.7.2024}; the contention of Learned State Counsel that Appellant-Department ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 23 - {Forest Department} does not have a work-charge establishment cannot sustain and the right and entitlement of the Respondent-writ petitioner and other similar daily wagers/muster-roll workers serving in all government departments for work charged status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service cannot be permitted to be abridged, curtailed, restricted or taken away in any manner and to any extent, by the State Authorities. Accordingly, Impugned Judgment passed by Learned Single Judge, entitling the Respondent- writ petitioner for work-charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service being in conformity with the mandate of law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra), which stands reinforced in the case of Surajmani (supra), which is a judgement in rem, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference in the instant proceedings. 10. Fourth contention of Learned State Counsel ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 24 - is that the Impugned judgement granting the work charge status is erroneous, being contrary to the judgment in the case of Jaswant Singh and others vs Union of India and Others, (1979) 4 SCC 440. The above contention is misconceived for the reason, that the judgment in the case of Jaswant Singh is distinguishable on facts; and even a perusal of Paras 2 and 3 of the judgment in case of Jaswant Singh [supra] indicates that entire strength of employees was work charged engaged for execution of specified work in the project i.e. Beas Project ; and upon completion of work for which they were employed their services automatically came to an end ; and their pay and allowances was chargeable against separate head of cost of work ; and aforesaid judgment covered only those work charged employees whose conditions of service were governed by Award of 1974 and such employees were neither entitled to relief of payment of gratuity act nor any other retrenched benefits by the respective ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 25 - employer. Thus, the plea set up by the appellants on the basis of Jaswant Singh’s case is devoid of any merit and is turned down, in facts of instant matter. Accordingly, the Impugned judgment directing the State Authorities to grant work charge status to the Respondent-Writ petitioner from date of completion of 8 years continuous daily waged service [w.e.f. 01.01.2002], despite being regularized from a subsequent date [in 2007] is as per judgement of the Honble Supreme Court in State of HP versus Gehar Singh (2007) 12 SCC 43 and therefore, the Impugned judgement does not call for any interference and does not suffer from any perversity or infirmity being in tune with the mandate of law as referred to above. 11. Fifth contention of Learned State Counsel is that the case of the Respondent-writ petitioner [Man Singh] is neither covered by the judgment in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya nor the judgment in case of Rakesh Kumar and therefore, Impugned Judgment dated 12.12.2023, directing to grant work ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 26 - charge status is unsustainable. The above contention is misconceived, in view of the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Surajmani [Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025] has mandated that the judgment in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya still holds the field and this dictum was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra) entitling daily wage workers for work-charge status from the date of completion of 8 years continuous service, with directions to the State Authorities to extend this benefit without adopting a pick and choose policy. The operative part of the judgment in the case of Surajmani (supra), reads as under:- “4. This Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P. reported in 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316 held as under: “2. A Scheme for Betterment (Appointment) Regularization of Muster- Roll/Daily-Wagers in Himachal Pradesh has been prepared by the Government of Himachal Pradesh and the same has been placed on record along with the supplementary affidavit of Shri K.J.B.V. Subramanyam dated 7-12-1992 in WP (C) No. 249 of 1988. 3. …xxx…. ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 27 - 4. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we modify the said scheme by substituting paragraphs 1 to 4 of the same by the following paragraphs: “(1) Daily-wage/muster-roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled, who have completed 10 years or more of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31-12-1993, shall be appointed as work-charged employees with effect from 1-1-1994 and shall be put in the time-scale of pay applicable to the corresponding lowest grade in the Government; (2) daily-wage/muster-roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled, who have not completed 10 years of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31-12-1993, shall be appointed as work-charged employees with effect from the date they complete the said period of 10 years of service and on such appointment they shall be put in the time-scale of pay applicable to the lowest grade in the Government; (3) daily-wage/muster-roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled who have not completed 10 years of service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31-12- 1993, shall be paid daily wages at the rates prescribed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time for daily-wage employees falling in Class III and Class IV till they are appointed as work-charged employees in accordance with paragraph 2; ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 28 - (4) daily-wage/muster-roll workers shall be regularized in a phased manner on the basis of seniority -cum-suitability including physical fitness. On regularization they shall be put in the minimum of the time-scale payable to the corresponding lowest grade applicable to the Government and would be entitled to all other benefits available to regular government servants of the corresponding grade.” 5. The workers who had been regularized in service in the Public Health Department under various schemes announced by the State Government from time to time but had not been granted the status of “work-charged” had approached the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in C WP No. 2735 of 2010 titled as Rakesh Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. which came to be disposed of on 28.07.2010 by opining as under: “6. The simple question is whether the delay defeats justice? In analyzing the above issue, it has to be borne in mind that the petitioners are only class-IV workers (Beldars). The schemes announced by the Government clearly provided that the department concerned should consider the workmen concerned for bringing them on the work charged category. So, there is an obligation cast onthe department to consider the cases of the daily waged workmen for conferment of the work-charged status, being on a work- ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 29 - charged establishment, on completion of the required number of years in terms of the policy. At the best, the petitioners can only be denied the interest on the eligible benefits and not the benefits as such, which accrued on them as per the policy and under which policy, the department was bound to confer the status, subject to the workmen satisfying the required conditions. 7. In the above circumstances, these Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case(s) of the petitioners herein for conferment of work charged status, subject to their eligibility in terms of the policy dated 3.4.2000 and as explained in 6.5.2000 policy, as extracted above. Needful in this regard shall be done within a period of three months from the date of production of the copy of this judgment by the respective petitioners. Needless to say that the question of conferment of work charged status does not arise in case the establishment ceases to be a work charged establishment and hence, the conferment of the status will not arise after the abolition of the work-charged status of the establishment.” 6. The aforesaid order came to be affirmed by this Court in Special leave Petition (Civil) No. 33570 of 2010 and all connected matters were disposed of on 15.01.2015. Later, certain workers who had been engaged on daily wage basis in Public Works Department of Himachal Pradesh, after ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 30 - having completed eight years of continuous service prayed for conferment of work- charged status by filing O.A. No. 412 of 2016 before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. Their prayer was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.06.2016. Upon challenging the same by the State in Civil Writ Petition No.3111 of 2016 titled as State of H.P. and Ors. vs. Sh. Ashwani Kumar the High Court, relying upon its judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 4489 of 2009 titled as Ravi Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Ors., decided on 14.12.2009, maintained the order of the Tribunal. The order of the High Court in Ashwani Kumar (Supra) has also been affirmed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019 titled as State of H.P. and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar by order dated 22.07.2019, wherein this Court observed as under : “3. We are not disturbing the finding of the Tribunal, which was affirmed by the High Court, with respect to the conferral of the status of the work charge from 01.01.2003. However, as regularization has been made only in the year 2006, obviously, notional benefit could have to be granted as the petition was initially filed in the year 2013. 4. Thus, we make the modification that the respondent would be entitled only for notional benefits of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly, with the aforesaid modification in ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 31 - the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court, the appeal is disposed of.” 9. It would not be out of context to refer at this juncture itself that the State, in its wisdom, having felt that the subsequent schemes having been formulated and implemented, would alter the situation and, therefore, order dated 12.04.1994 passed in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s (Supra) case has to be modified, had approached this Court by filing an Interlocutory Application being IA No. 3 in the year 2005 in the aforesaid Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case, i.e., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 787 of 1987. A perusal of the said application and the averments made thereunder would clearly indicate that the very same contentions urged, pleas advanced and arguments put forth today before us were the ones which were urged/ raised in the said application. Though Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned senior counsel appearing for the State would fairly submit that the said application was withdrawn on the ground of subsequent schemes having been formulated and implemented by the State of Himachal Pradesh, but we are unable to accept the said proposition howsoever attractive it may be, for the simple reason that the said application was dismissed simpliciter as withdrawn. Yet another ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 32 - factor which sways our mind to reject the contention raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the State would be the fact that the State having accepted the judgment of Ashwani Kumar (supra), has implemented the same and it is in this background, the High Court in the impugned order has observed that the State cannot adopt pick and choose policy. 10. For the cumulative reasons afore- stated, 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 costs.” 12. Last contention of Learned State Counsel ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 33 - is that the directions contained in the impugned judgment granting work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of daily wage service with “restricted consequential benefits” for three years prior to filing of petition is contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case of Surajmani (supra) whereby, “notional benefits” were to be granted. 12(i). For appreciating the contention of Learned State Counsel, it is necessary to have a recap of Paras 8, 10 and 12 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh versus Surajmani [Civil Appeal No 1595 of 2025, decided on 06.02.2025], 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 ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 34 - 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 afore stated 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… 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 ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 35 - of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1].” 12(ii). While deciding a similar matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court mandated in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No (s). 11170 of 2024, The State of H.P. & Ors. vs Janak Dev Sharma, decided on 26.05.2025, that the judgment in case of Surajmani (supra), is a judgment in rem and 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.” 12(iii). Since the judgment in case of Surajmani (supra) is a “judgment in rem”, which declares the ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 36 - law, covering twin aspects, firstly, the entitlement of daily wagers for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of daily waged service and secondly, what benefits were to accrue viz is, actual or notional, upon the grant of work charge status. On the first aspect, the entitlement of daily wagers for grant of work charged status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service is inconsonance with the declaration of law, in case of Surajmani, (supra), binds the State Authorities, in all respects. On the second aspect, regarding claim or direction for “all consequential benefits” or “restricted consequential benefits for three years” is concerned the same is liable to be interfered with on various counts. Firstly, directions to grant all consequential benefits or the restricted consequential benefits is ex-facie contrary to the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra) which limits the relief to “notional benefits” only ; and ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 37 - secondly, the directions to limit the relief to “notional benefits” was based on findings recorded in Para 8 of the judgment in the case of Surajmani (supra), mandating that the daily wagers who were not regularly appointed or meaning thereby, who were appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme should not be granted extra benefits, which will burden the State Exchequer and it is in this backdrop, that the succor was given to the State, by modifying the orders passed by Learned State Administrative Tribunal, giving “all consequential benefits”, which were upheld by the Division Bench of this Court, to “notional benefits” by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar [Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019, decided on 22.07.2019]. Further, this principle of “notional benefits” stands reinforced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Surajmani [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, arising from SLP (C) 23016 of 2023, decided on 06.02.2025]; and thirdly, the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Ashwani Kumar and Surajmani ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 38 - (supra), limiting relief to “notional benefits” cannot be permitted to be tinkered with in any eventuality ; and fourthly, grant of “all consequential benefits” or “restricted consequential benefits” shall amount to giving leverage or premium to those daily wagers who were not regularly appointed or were appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme embodied in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India i.e. without there being a sanctioned post, without advertising the post, without inviting applications from eligible candidates and without determining the comparative merit of all eligible candidates in-accordance with the Constitutional Scheme. Financial incentives i.e. “all consequential benefits” or “restricted consequential benefits” cannot be extended to those daily wagers who were not regularly appointed or were appointed dehors the established ethos of public employment by a back door method. Right to “all consequential benefits or restricted consequential benefits” can only accrue to an incumbent including daily wager who is appointed in accordance with the Constitutional ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 39 - Scheme, which has been outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 01} and the same stands reaffirmed in the case of Surajmani (supra) also; and fifthly, mere filing of a petition(s) or its pendency before State Administrative Tribunal or this Court for work charge status, by a daily wager who was not regularly appointed in accordance with the established ethos of public appointment or was appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme will not confer any legally enforceable right on such daily wager for “all consequential benefits” or “restricted consequential benefits” as the case may be ; and lastly, foreseeing the eventuality that some daily wagers were granted work charge status with “all consequential benefits or restricted consequential benefits” by the State Authorities, despite the fact that such daily wagers were not regularly appointed or were appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme, therefore, in order to carve out a parity and to obviate the charge of discrimination inter-se such ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 40 - daily wagers, as a class, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has mandated in Para 11 of the judgment in case of Surajmani (supra) by reserving liberty for the State Authorities to recover excess benefits in installments, from those daily wagers who were not regularly appointed or were appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme, by entitling all such daily wagers for work charge status but by limiting the relief to “notional benefits, in tune with the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ashwani Kumar (supra), which stands reinforced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Surajmani (supra) and recently reiterated in the case of Janak Dev Sharma (supra). 13. An identical Intra Court Appeal i.e. LPA No. 541 of 2025, State of Himachal Pradesh versus Krishni Devi stands decided by this Court, wherein, the judgement passed by the Learned Single Judge entitling the Respondent-writ petitioner therein for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service was ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 41 - upheld; whereas, the directions regarding “restricted consequential benefits” for three years prior to the filing of the petition were set-aside by modifying the relief to “notional benefits”. CONCLUSION 14. In the instant appeal, the Respondent-writ petitioner has not placed on record any material to establish that he was regularly appointed on daily wage basis or such appointment was made inaccordance with the established ethos as per the Constitutional Scheme, as discussed above. In these circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to hold that once the Respondent-writ petitioner was not regularly appointed on daily wages in- accordance with the mandate of public employment embodied in the Constitutional Scheme of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as discussed hereinabove; therefore, the Respondent-writ petitioner herein, shall only be entitled for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service and upon grant of work charge ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 42 - status, the relief shall be limited to notional benefits, in light of the mandate of Law, declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Ashwani Kumar which has been reinforced in Surajmani and Janak Dev Sharma (supra). Based on above discussion, the Impugned Judgment dated 12.12.2023, entitling the Respondent- writ petitioner(s) herein, for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service is upheld. However, upon conferment of work charge status, the resultant relief shall be limited to “notional benefits” instead of “restricted consequential benefits for 3 years prior to filing of the petition”, so as to bring the Impugned Judgment, it tune with the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ashwani Kumar (supra), which stands reinforced in the cases of Surajmani (supra), and recently reiterated in the case of Janak Dev Sharma (supra). 15. No other point was pressed/argued. ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 43 - DIRECTIONS: 16. In view of the above discussions and for reasons stated hereinabove, the instant appeal, is partly allowed, in the following terms:- (i) Instant Appeal, LPA No 91 of 2025 is partly allowed ; (ii) Impugned Judgment dated 12.12.2023 passed by Learned Single Judge in CWP No. 7702 of 2022, Man Singh versus State of HP & others; entitling the Respondent-writ petitioner for work charge status from date of completion of 8 years continuous daily waged service is upheld ; (iii) State Authorities-appellants are directed to confer work-charged status as Forest Worker-Class-IV w.e.f. 01.01.2002 or such like due date from completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service ; in applicable time-pay scale, by counting daily wage service w.e.f. 01.01.1994; (iv) Directions in Impugned Judgment giving “restricted consequential benefits for three years three years prior to filing of petition” being contrary to judgements in cases of Ashwani Kumar, Surajmani and Janak Dev Sharma (supra) is ( 2025:HHC:28994 ) - 44 - quashed and set-aside; with modified relief of “notional benefits” from due date, but without any past arrears; (v) State Authorities shall comply with the directions contained herein, within six weeks from receipt of certified/downloaded copy of this judgment; (vi) Parties to bear their respective costs. In the aforesaid terms, the Letters Patent Appeal and all pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall stand disposed of, accordingly. (G.S. Sandhawalia) (Ranjan Sharma) Chief Justice Judge August 27, 2025 [tm/Bhardwaj]