2025:HHC:34439 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No.7410 of 2019 Decided on: 08.10.2025 __________________________________________________________ Saran Dass and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. No For the petitioner: Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Ranjan Sharma, Judge [Oral] Petitioners namely, Saran Dass, Raj Kumar and Tarlok Chand, have come up before this Court, seeking the following reliefs:- “A) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to grant work charge status to the applicants from the date when they completed eight years service as Daily Wage. B) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to fix the pay of the applicants as per their work charge status after eight years and arrears of salary, seniority and other benefit of pay fixation may also be granted in their favour with all consequential benefits.” 2. Grievance of the petitioners namely, Saran Dass, Raj Kumar and Tarlok Chand is that they were 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:34439 - 2 - engaged as Beldar, on Daily Wage Basis, under the respondents No. 2 & 3 in the Department of Horticulture, Himachal Pradesh. It is case of the petitioners that they have completed 8 years of continuous daily wage service, but they were not accorded the work charge status in terms of the mandate of law in CWP No.2735 of 2010, titled Rakesh Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters, decided on 28.07.2010. It is further averred that the petitioners made representations but, the claim was rejected on 08.10.2014, on the ground that the Respondent-Horticulture Department does not have a work charge establishment and, therefore, the conferment of work charge status was not tenable. However, during the pendency of the instant petition, petitioners have filed an application [CMP-T No.594 of 2024], stating that the claim of the petitioners for conferment of work charge status is squarely covered by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.165 of 2021, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Surajmani and another. 3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the 2025:HHC:34439 - 3 - Respondents-State Authorities have filed Reply-Affidavit of Director of Horticulture, verified on 05.07.2016. Perusal of Reply-Affidavit states that the petitioners were engaged as Beldar on daily wage basis in 1996 and their services have been regularized as Beldar vide office order dated 17.02.2009 and 30.06.2010 on the basis of continuous service from a prospective date, against vacant, Class-IV post. Reply-Affidavit further states that for grant of work charge status on analogy of Rakesh Kumar (supra), their claim was rejected on 08.10.2015, [Annexure A-1], as the Respondent Department did not have a work charge establishment. In Para 6(iv) of the Reply-Affidavit, it is stated that the petitioners have not completed 240 days before 31.12.1993, which they completed on 31.12.1996 and therefore, the petitioners were not eligible for work charge status, as is being claimed by them. 4. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners controverting the stand taken in Reply- Affidavit that the petitioners have completed 240 days of continuous service from 31.12.1996 onwards. 5. Heard, Mr. Nimish Gupta, Learned Counsel 2025:HHC:34439 - 4 - for the petitioner and Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents- State. 6. Since the issue with respect to entitlement of daily wagers for conferment of work charge status to all daily wages [Class III and Class-IV categories] stands adjudicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Surajmani and other connected matters, decided on 06.02.2025 and the aforesaid judgment has also been mandated to be judgment in rem then, this Court is bound by the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra), wherein, the entitlement for work charge status was affirmed but the benefits flowing from work charge status were limited to “notional benefits”. The operative part of the judgment, in the case of Surajmani (supra), reads as under: 5. The workers who had been regularised 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 2025:HHC:34439 - 5 - in CWP 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 on the department to consider the cases of the daily waged workmen for conferment of the work-charged status, being on a work-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 workcharged 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 2025:HHC:34439 - 6 - 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 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 the order of the Central 2025:HHC:34439 - 7 - Administrative Tribunal and the High Court, the appeal is disposed of.” 7. In this factual scenario, when we consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, it would not detain us for too long to brush aside the contention of the learned senior counsel and learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Himachal Pradesh. Inasmuch as the issue involved in these appeals has been laid to rest by this Court in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (Supra). That apart, this Court, while examining a similar plea in Ashwani Kumar’s (Supra) case in Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019 disposed of on 22.07.2019, has specifically addressed this issue by arriving at a conclusion that the order of the Tribunal directing conferment of ‘work charge status’ on completion of eight (08) years of service, did not suffer from any infirmity and it was reiterated order of the Tribunal was just and proper. 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 Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court by arriving at a conclusion that the petitioners/appellants therein would be entitled to the notional 2025:HHC:34439 - 8 - benefits of the order passed by the Tribunal and accordingly disposed of the said appeal. 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 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 2025:HHC:34439 - 9 - impugned order has observed that the State cannot adopt pick and choose policy. 10. For the cumulative reasons aforestated, 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. 11. We also make it explicitly clear that the State in its endeavour of implementing the orders of the Tribunal, High Court or this Court, if having paid the amounts in excess, would be at liberty to take such steps as it deems fit without insisting for one time recovery. 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 of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 2025:HHC:34439 - 10 - SCC 1]. 7. Following the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra), an identical matter was decided by this Court in CWPOA No. 5234 of 2020, titled as Maan Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, decided on 06.10.2025, wherein after following the mandate in the case of Surajmani (supra) and the Division Bench of this Court, in LPA No.183 of 2024, titled as Jai Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 27.08.2025 and in LPA No.184 of 2024, titled as Naresh Kumar versus Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar, H.P. Krishi Vishwavidyalaya,Palampur and another, decided on 27.08.2025, entitling the daily wagers for work charge status but with notional benefits only. 7(i). While adjudicating the claim in case of Maan Singh (supra), the contention of the State Authorities that once the regularization was granted then, the work charge status from an earlier date could not be granted by this Court. This contention was turned down in view of the principles, laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Himachal 2025:HHC:34439 - 11 - Pradesh versus Gehar Singh, (2007) 12 SCC 43, which was reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.231 of 2025, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Gita Ram Sharma, decided on 27.08.2025 in the following terms: 5(iv). The objection in Reply-Affidavit by the State Authorities that the petition was filed after 11 years, cannot be a ground, to defeat and deny the substantial justice, when, the judgment in case of Surajmani (supra) is a judgment in rem. Moreover the benefit of judgment in rem, in the case of Surajmani is extendable to all daily wagers notionally, then, this Court sees no reason, as to why the petitioner should not be given similar treatment. Further, conferment of work charge status from 01.01.2007 to the petitioner shall entail higher pay fixation during service and the higher retiral benefits upon retirement also and such a claim is based on a recurring and continuing cause also, in view of the mandate of the Division Bench of this Court, in LPA No.183 of 2024, titled as Jai Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 27.08.2025 and in LPA No.184 of 2024, titled as Naresh Kumar versus Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar, H.P. Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Palampur and another, decided on 27.08.2025. 5(v). Besides, the above, mere grant of regularization cannot be a ground to deny the Work Charge Status from an earlier date, in view of the 2025:HHC:34439 - 12 - principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh versus Gehar Singh, (2007) 12 SCC 43, which principle was reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.231 of 2025, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Gita Ram Sharma, decided on 27.08.2025. In these circumstances, the objection of the State Authorities cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny, when, the conferment of Work Charge Status is just a grant of better status, with higher pay in running pay scale, in lieu of the prolonged daily waged service rendered by such incumbent. Based on the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Surajmani (supra), Learned State Counsel is unable to dispute the settled position of law and entitlement of daily wagers for Work Charge Status, as referred to above. In above backdrop, once the judgment in the case of Surajmani (supra), is a judgment in rem, therefore, the State Authorities as well as this Court is bound by the mandate therein, entitling the petitioners for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service, with notional benefits only. DIRECTIONS: 8. In view of the above discussion and for 2025:HHC:34439 - 13 - the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present petition is allowed, in the following terms: “(i) Subject to verification of daily waged continuous service of 8 years rendered by petitioner as Beldar, the State Authorities are directed to confer work charge status to the petitioner as Beldar in terms of the mandate of law, in the case of Surajmani (supra). (ii) State Authorities shall grant the consequential benefits, upon conferment of work charge status to the petitioner “notionally only” but without any past arrears within six weeks from today; (iii) As a sequel to directions (i) & (ii) above, State Authorities shall refix the pay and grant benefit of higher pay to the petitioner from the date of this judgment [if not already granted] within the same period. (iv). Parties to bear respective costs.” In aforesaid terms, the instant petition is allowed and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 8th October, 2025 [himani]