IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11141 of 2024 Date of Decision: 17.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Urmila Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. C.N.Singh, Mr. Devender Sharma & Mr. Anshul Gandhi, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents No. 1 & 2- State. Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Senior Advocate with Ms. Godawari, Ms. Lalita Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Mr. Hitansh Raj & Ms. Aastha Kohlil, Advocates, for respondent No. 3. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein was initially engaged on daily wage basis as Clerk/Office Helper with respondent No. 3-Forest Corporation in year 1989. Though in year 1998, petitioner had completed eight years of daily wage service with 240 days in each 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 calendar year and as such, had become eligible for grant of work- charge status/regularization, in terms of Regularization Policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which stood adopted by respondent No. 3-Forest Corporation, but fact remains that petitioner was not regularized. Subsequently, petitioner came to be declared surplus in the Department of Forest Corporation and as such, she, pursuant to Policy decision taken by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, was deputed in the Department of Education, Himachal Pradesh in year 2007 vide Annexure P-4. In year 2007 itself, services of the petitioner were regularized as Clerk, taking into consideration daily wage service rendered by her in the Forest Corporation. In year 2012, petitioner was further placed in the post of Junior Assistant and till then, she has worked in that capacity. In year 2024, persons junior to the petitioner namely Smt. Suman Dutta and Smt. Jai Devi were regularized w.e.f. 19.03.2001, whereas petitioner, who is senior to both, was regularized as Clerk w.e.f 12.11.2007. 2. Since petition filed by Smt. Suman Dutta and Smt. Jai Devi for their regularization had become infructuous on account of decision taken by the Forest Corporation to regularize their services w.e.f 19.03.2001, no further adjudication was required in that matter. Petition filed by aforesaid persons had rendered infructuous, but direction was issued to grant incidental benefits to the petitioners, 3 vide judgment dated 29.05.2024 (Annexure P-6). Petitioner herein, after regularization of her juniors, as detailed hereinabove, submitted representation dated 29.07.2024 (Annexure P-7) for regularizing her services w.e.f. 01.01.2001, which prayer of her was not accepted, as a result thereof, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the reliefs as reproduced hereunder:- “(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ Order or direction, directing the Respondents department (Respondent No. 3) to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of work charge status/regularization after completion of nine years of daily wage service i.e. w.e.f 01.01.1999 with all consequential benefits. (ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ Order or direction, directing Respondents department to re-fix the pay of the petitioner and release the entire arrear in favour of the petitioner along with 12% interest. (iii) In alternatively issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction by directing the respondents department to regularize the service to the petitioner from the date of regularization of her junior i.e. Lalita Sharma, Suman Dutta, Tota Ram etc. with all consequential benefits and re-fix the pay of the petitioner accordingly and eligible benefits may also be ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner within time bound manner along with 12% interest.” 3. In the case at hand, respondent No. 3-Forest Corporation has filed reply, whereas no reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2, from whom otherwise petitioner has not 4 claimed any relief. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of para 4 of the reply of respondent No. 3, which reads as under:- “That it is pertinent to mention here that the Forest Corporation is not a work charge establishment as was also held by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court in CWP No. 5907/2010 titled as Sukh Chain Versus HP State Forest Development Corporation. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for the work charge status could not be allowed. The contention of the petitioner regarding Janam Singh case is also not tenable as the same has also been decided by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No. 5907/2010 titled as Sukh Chain Versus HP State Forest Development Corporation and the claim fo the petitioner therein has been rejected.” 4. In nutshell, case of the petitioner came to be resisted at the behest of the respondents on the ground that there is no work- charge establishment in the Forest Department and relief, as prayed for, cannot be granted after inordinate delay. Besides above, respondent-Corporation in para 10 has stated as under:- “That the contents of par 10 of the petitioner are wrong and specifically denied. It is pertinent to mention here that Smt. Lalita Sharma and Tota Ram were working as daily wage fieldman which is a Class-IV post. They had filed a claim in the year 04.03.2005 before the Labour Court that they were performing duties of Class- III post. The same was decided on 28.09.2005 thereafter appeals were also preferred but the same were decided against the Corporation. In view of the same the services of the Smt. Lalita Sharma and Tota Ram were regularized w.e.f. 19.03.2001 and 31.12.2001 respectively in compliance to orders of the Hon’ble Labour Court dated 28.02.2005 and 05.08.2005 as such the case of the petitioner is totally different from Lalita Sharma and Tota 5 Ram. The rest of contents of this para pertains to respondent No. 2.” 5. Though reply filed by respondent No. 3-Forest Corporation, if read in its entirety, nowhere disputes claim of the petitioner with regard to his seniority over and above persons namely Smt. Lalita Sharma, Tota Ram, Smt. Suman Dutta and Jai Devi, but an attempt has been made to defeat her rightful claim on the ground that granting regularization to the petitioner w.e.f 01.01.2001 at this stage would unsettle the seniority. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that there is no dispute that petitioner herein was initially appointed in the Forest Department on daily wage basis in year 1989 and as such, had become eligible for conferment of work-charge status/regularization in year 1998 after his having completed eight years daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year. However, subsequently, on account of his being declared surplus in the Forest Department, her services were transferred to the Education Department, where at present petitioner is working. In year 2007, Education Department regularized the services of the petitioner, but taking note of daily wage service rendered by her in the Forest Department from 1989 to 2007, there was no occasion, if any, for the petitioner to approach this Court 6 because by that time none of her juniors had been given regularization from the date prior to the date of regularization of the petitioner. In year 2024, persons namely Smt. Suman Dutta and Jai Devi came to be granted regularization w.e.f 19.03.2001. If it is so, rightful claim of the petitioner cannot be permitted to be defeated on the ground of delay and laches because as soon as factum with regard to regularization of the persons junior to the petitioner came to the notice of the petitioner in year 2024, she made representation dated 29.04.2024, specifically claiming therein that she be also regularized from the date her juniors have been regularized. Otherwise also, claim of the petitioner with regard to regularization cannot be ignored on account of the fact that in case mistake committed by the respondents by regularizing the services of juniors ahead of the petitioner, would keep on haunting the petitioner for the reason that she shall be getting lesser pay than persons junior to her. 7. Similarly, this Court finds another ground raised by the petitioner with regard to cessation of work-charge establishment is not tenable in terms of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Bench of this Court in SLP(C) No. 10930 of 2019, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar, wherein it has been categorically held that work-charge establishment is not a pre- requisite for conferment of work-charge status. Afore view taken by 7 the Division Bench in Ashwani Kumar (supra) has been further reiterated in LPA No. 165 of 2021, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Surajmani, which has been further upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court 8. Consequently, in view of discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. Respondent- Corporation is directed to confer work-charge status on the petitioner w.e.f 01.01.1999 and further regularize her services w.e.f 19.03.2001 as has been done in the case of persons junior to the petitioner with all consequential service benefits. However, petitioner herein shall be entitled to financial benefits for three years prior to the filing of the petition. Since petitioner has been fighting for her rightful claim since long, this court hopes and trusts that needful, in terms of instant order, shall be done expeditiously, preferably within two months. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 17, 2025 (Sunil)