IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos. 20547, 20721, 20725, 20727, 20691, 20679, 20677, 20671, 20549, 20055, 20025, 20717 and 21031 of 2025 Date of Decision: 06.01.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP-20547 of 2025 Param Dev ……...Petitioner Versus HPSFDCL & Anr. …....Respondents 2. CWP-20721 of 2025 Devi Ram ……...Petitioner Versus HPSFDCL & Anr. …....Respondents 3. CWP-20725 of 2025 Roop Singh ……...Petitioner Versus HPSFDCL & Anr. …....Respondents 4. CWP-20727 of 2025 Hans Raj ……...Petitioner Versus HPSFDCL & Anr. …....Respondents 5. CWP-20691 of 2025 Daya Ram ……...Petitioner Versus HPSFDCL & Anr. …....Respondents 6. CWP-20679 of 2025 Mustak ……...Petitioner Versus HPSFDCL & Anr. …....Respondents 7. CWP-20677 of 2025 Jitender Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus HPSFDCL & Anr. …....Respondents 8. CWP-20671 of 2025 Lachhi Ram ……...Petitioner Versus HPSFDCL & Anr. …....Respondents 9. CWP-20549 of 2025 Hem Raj ……...Petitioner Versus HPSFDCL & Anr. …....Respondents 10. CWP-20055 of 2025 Dhani Ram ……...Petitioner Versus HPSFDCL & Anr. …....Respondents 11. CWP-20025 of 2025 Netar Singh ……...Petitioner Versus HPSFDCL & Anr. …....Respondents 12. CWP-20717 of 2025 Karam Singh ……...Petitioner Versus HPSFDCL & Anr. …....Respondents 13. CWP-21031 of 2025 Sher Singh ……...Petitioner Versus HPSFDCL & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Mr. Hitansh Raj, Mr. Kiran Dhiman, Ms. Kamakshi Tarlokta, Mr. Abhishek Singh Nagta, Advocates, for the respondents, in their respective petitions. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Since common questions of facts as well as law are involved in both the above-captioned cases, this Court heard them together and the same are now being disposed of vide common judgment. 2. Though same and similar prayer has been sought by the petitioners in these petitions, but for the sake of brevity, prayer made 2 by the petitioners in CWP No.20547 of 2025 is being reproduced hereinbelow:- “(i) That Annexure P-2 may be set aside/quashed and the respondents may be ordered to fix pay of the petitioner as per Annexure P-1 dated 23.08.2025.” 3. Petitioners’ case is that while implementing the Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, titled as The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Versus Surajmani & Anr., decided alongwith connected civil appeals on 06.02.2025, the respondents conferred work-charge status upon them retrospectively and accordingly, issued office orders (Annexure P-1), refixing their pay by granting notional increments. The fixation of pay was carried out by the respondents on notional basis in view of the directions issued in Surajmani (supra). Petitioners’ grievance is that vide office order (Annexure P-3), the notional annual increments granted to them earlier, were withdrawn. Consequently, petitioners’ pay was re-fixed granting them the benefit of annual increments even on notional basis. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the petitioners stands squarely covered and has already been adjudicated upon in CWPOA No.3103/2020, titled as Jayanti Rathore & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 19.11.2025, whereunder following directions were issued: - “8. In view of above discussion, and for the reasons recorded herein above, the instant petition is disposed of, in following terms:- 3 (i) Claim of petitioners for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wages service [stand already given to petitioners 1 & 2 w.e.f. 01.01.2004 and to petitioners 3 to 6 w.e.f. 01.01.2005] is affirmed; being inconsonance with the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Surajmani (supra); (ii) State Authorities shall extend the relief of “notional benefits” to the petitioners from the date of grant of work charge status [if not already granted] with annual increments till regularization with ‘notional benefits”, but without any past arrears; (iii) Claim of the petitioners for past arrears [wholly or in part] upon grant of work charge status is declined in terms of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surajmani (supra) which recognizes “notional benefits”; (iv) Parties to bear respective costs. In the aforesaid terms, the instant petition along with pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners would be satisfied, in case, respondents/competent authority are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of the directions issued in the above judgment, more particularly direction No.(ii), in terms of which, the respondents have been directed to extend the notional benefits to the petitioners (therein) from the date of conferment of work charge status with annual increments on notional basis. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have no objection to this prayer. 4 5. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioners for grant of notional annual increment from the date of conferment of work charge status in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment, within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. January 06, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 5