( 2025:HHC:29205 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No. 93 of 2025 Reserved on: 14.08.2025 Announced on: 29.08.2025 __________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Appellants Versus Sanjeev Kumar ….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: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Ajay Thakur, Advocate. 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 CWPOA No. 4228 of 2020, In re: Sanjeev Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, directing the State Authorities to grant work charged status to the Respondent-writ petitioner, Sanjeev Kumar, w.e.f. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 2 - 15.07.2005 from the date of completion of 8 years continuous daily waged service, countable from 15.07.1997, with all consequential benefits. FACTUAL MATRIX BEFORE WRIT COURT: 2. Writ petitioner, Sanjeev Kumar, who was appointed as a Sweeper [Class-IV] on contingent paid basis on 15.07.1997, filed a CWPOA No.4228 of 2020 [originated from OA No. 1987 of 2018], with the following relief:- “7 (i). That the respondents Department may kindly be directed to give the work charge status/regularization to the applicant with all consequential benefits with effect from 06-06-2005 with the interest @ 9% per annum, when he completed his 8 y ears services with 240 days as per the policy of the State Government and as per ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court on 28-07- 2010 in Rakesh Kumar.” 2(i). In CWPOA No.4228 of 2020, Respondent-writ petitioner has set up a case that he was engaged as Sweeper on contingent paid basis on 15.07.1997 [Annexure A-1], and though he was regularized as such from 29.09.2007 [Annexure A-2], yet he prays for grant of work charge status, in Para-6 (iii) of the writ petition, from the date of completion of 240 days in each calendar year with all consequential benefits. ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 3 - STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES-APPELLANTS BEFORE WRIT COURT: 2(ii). In Reply-Affidavit, the State Authorities have set up a case in Para-3 of the Preliminary Submissions that the writ petitioner had not completed 8 years of daily waged/contingent paid service as on the cut off date i.e. 31.3.2004 in terms of the policy dated 9.6.2006 [Annexure R-1] and therefore, in terms of the Policy dated 18.06.2007, which provided for regularization on completion of 8 years as on 31.03.2006, he was regularized on 29.09.2007 [Annexure A-2]. The claim for work charge status was denied in Para 5 of Reply, on the ground, that the work charge status cannot be conferred after abolition of work charge establishment. In view of this his case for regularization from date of completion of 8 years of contingent paid service was rejected on 31.08.2006 [Annexure R-2]. 2(iii). In Rejoinder, the claim(s) for granting benefit of regularization or work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service was reiterated. Learned Counsel contends that though regularization is subject to availability ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 4 - of vacancy, whereas, work charge status is just conferment of better status with higher pay in time scale to a daily wager, for which, neither the post nor work charge establishment is required. It is averred that as per the principle enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh versus Gehar Singh (2007) 12 SCC 43, mere grant of regularization will not come in the way for grant of work charge status from an earlier date. IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 12.12.2023 BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE: 3. Based on the material on record, the Learned Single Judge passed the Impugned Judgment on 12.12.2023, entitling the Respondent-writ petitioner for work-charged status [w.e.f. 15.07.2005] from the date of completion of 8 years continuous daily wage service by giving consequential benefits for 3 years prior to filing the writ petition, in the following terms:- “10. Accordingly, as this issue is no more res-integra that the conferment of work charge status is not dependent on an establishment being a work charge establishment and as work charge status has been denied to the petitioner on this count only, therefore, this petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to confer work charge ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 5 - status on the petitioner post completion of eight years of service as a contingent Sweeper with all monetary benefits but with the condition that the monetary benefits shall be notional as up to three years before filing of this writ petition, whereafter, actual monetary benefits shall be payable.” CHALLENGE TO IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 12.12.2023 IN INSTANT APPEAL: 4. In Instant Intra-Court Appeal, the State Authorities have assailed the Impugned Judgment dated 12.12.2023, regarding the conferment of work charge status on the ground that firstly, the Respondent - writ petitioner having accepted his regularization without any protest on 29.09.2007 then the claim for work charge was not tenable; and secondly, the issue regarding conferment of work-charged status on completion of 8 years of daily contingent paid service which was subject matter in LPA No.165 of 2021, State of Himachal Pradesh & Others versus Surajmani and another and other connected matters has not attained finality as SLP (C) No. 23016 of 2023, In re: State of Himachal Pradesh & Others versus Surajmani and another was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court; and thirdly, the Appellant-department [Technical Education, ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 6 - Vocational and Industrial Training} did not have a work- charged establishment and therefore, the impugned judgment granting work-charged status was erroneous; and the impugned judgment granting restricted consequential benefits for 3 years prior to the filing of writ petition, upon grant of work charged status, was erroneous, being contrary to the mandate of Law, in Himachal Pradesh Versus Surajmani and other connected matters [Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025 decided on 06.02.2025]. 5. Heard, Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Learned Additional Advocate General, for the Appellants-State and Mr. Ajay Thakur, Learned Counsel, for the Respondent. 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, ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 7 - 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 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, which reveals that though he was engaged as a contingent paid Sweeper in the year 1997 and had completed 240 days in said year and though his services were regularized on 29.09.2007 [Annexure A-2], yet he could not be denied work charged status, when the Honble Supreme Court, has held in principle, in State of Himachal Pradesh vs Gehar Singh (2007) 12 SCC 43, that grant of regularization shall not divest an employee of the right for work charge status from an earlier date. Moreover, right of the daily wagers for work charged status stands settled by the judgment in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled as ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 8 - Rakesh Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others along with connected matters; against which SLP was dismissed by Three Judges Bench of the Honble Supreme Court; and this right was reiterated in case of CWP No. 3111 of 2016, State of Himachal Pradesh versus Ashwani Kumar, mandating to grant work charge status, irrespective of the fact as to whether work charge establishment existed and conversion of work charged establishment would not make such right non-existent. Even the conferment of work charge status was reiterated by this Court in LPA No. 165 of 2021 State of Himachal Pradesh versus Surajmani and another, which stands affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court in case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Others versus Surajmani and Another [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025 and other connected matters, decided on 06.02.2025]. Based on this, the Learned Single Judge directed the State Authorities to grant the work-charged status to the Respondent-writ petitioner from date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily-wage service after taking into account the ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 9 - material on record and the factual and legal matrix and therefore, the impugned judgement does not warrant any interference in fact-situation of instant proceedings. 8. Second contention of Learned State Counsel is that the issue regarding conferment of work charged status from the date of completion of 8 years of daily waged service, which was 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, 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 holds good any more. The present Letters Patent Appeal was filed along with an application for condonation of delay on 26.09.2024. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 21.12.2024, when, notice was issued to the non-applicant/respondent-writ petitioner and thereafter the matter was fixed for 12.03.2025, when Mr. Ajay Thakur, Advocate, had put ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 10 - in appearance on behalf of the Respondent-Writ Petitioner and accordingly the delay was condoned and the LPA was finally taken up for adjudication at this 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 daily wagers for work charged status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service. Since, SLP in the 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 daily wage service [w.e.f. 15.07.2015], does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 9. Third contention of Learned State Counsel is that the Appellant Department [Technical Education and Vocational and Industrial Training Department] does not have a work-charged establishment and ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 11 - therefore, the work charge status cannot be extended to the Respondent-writ petitioner. The above plea is misconceived for the reason that firstly, the right acquired by a daily wager for work charged status in terms of the mandate of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra) can neither be negated nor taken away by the State Authorities; and secondly, the contention of the Learned State Counsel cannot sustain, as the same would amount to depriving the Respondent-writ petitioner of the benefits accruing in terms of the mandate of the judgement in the case of Surajmani, which is a judgement in rem and is binding on the State Authorities and Court(s) and thirdly, as per the mandate of law in case of Ashwani Kumar (supra) for conferment of work charge status there was neither the need for work charge establishment nor 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 to daily wagers in the State ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 12 - and lastly, once the neither State Authorities in the appellant-department has granted work charge status to other Class-IV daily/contingent workers, from the date of completion of 8 years of daily waged service with higher pay benefits therefore, the denial of similar work charged status with higher pay fixation to the respondent-writ petitioner herein is patently discriminatory, illegal and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and when, concept of work charge status, in Himachal Pradesh was introduced by the State Authorities and the same was also approved by the Honble Apex Court as detailed hereinbelow, and therefore, the Impugned Judgment granting work charged status does not suffer from any infirmity. 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 ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 13 - “scheme for the betterment of skilled and unskilled daily wage/muster-roll workers in all government 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 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 and this policy remained in vogue till the issuance of another policy on 09.06.2004 meaning thereby, that daily wagers engaged between this period would be granted the work charged status. 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 ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 14 - Bench of this Court in the case of Gauri Dutt & 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:29205 ) - 15 - as to whether work charge establishment exists or not in the case of Pritam Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh, CWPOA No.7497of 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 regard and it has also been observed that granting of work-charged status ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 16 - 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 not result into his ouster from the service or debar him from getting the benefit of length of service for that ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 17 - 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 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 ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 18 - 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. 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 ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 19 - 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 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 ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 20 - 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. The matter regarding grant of work charge status from 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, 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 the case of State of Himachal Pradesh versus Ashwani Kumar, [Civil Appeal No 5753 of 2019, decided on 22.07.2019], and while deciding the Civil Appeal, 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 ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 21 - “all consequential benefits” was modified by entitling 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 Mool Raj Upadhyaya, Gehar Singh, Ashwani Kumar and Surajmani [supra] and the judgments of this Court in cases of Gauri Dutt, Rakesh Kumar and Pritam Singh {CWPOA No 7497 of 2020, decided on 29.7.2024}; 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 ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 22 - taken away in any manner and to any extent by State Authorities. Contention of Learned State Counsel and the action of State Authorities in raking up the plea that since work charge establishment stood abolished therefore, the work charge status cannot be granted cannot be permitted when, this plea stands negated by this Court in case of judgement passed by the Division Bench of this Court Ashwani Kumar, (supra), which stands upheld by the Honble Supreme Court and moreover, when, concept of work charge status in the State of Himachal Pradesh was just conferment of a better status by giving pay in the time scale-pay scale as was admissible to persons holding corresponding posts, in terms of the Scheme of Betterment framed by the State Authorities, which was approved by the Honble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra) and judgements subsequent thereto, as referred to above. In these circumstances, this Court reiterates that for purposes of conferment of work charge status to all the daily wagers in Himachal Pradesh, there was neither any need for work charge establishment nor its cessation or its ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 23 - abolition or conversion would make any difference and even there was no requirement for creation of post and even availability or non-availability of post would have any impact for conferring such status. Recently, the Honble Supreme Court has mandated in Surajmani [supra], by declaring the law, by way of judgment in rem, entitling daily wagers for work charged status from date of completion of 8 years of continuous service then, the rights and benefits accruing from the declaration of law can neither be restricted nor curtailed or denied to daily wagers like respondent-writ petitioner. Denial of work charge status to the respondent-writ petitioner shall certainly defeat the mandate of the judgement for granting benefits without resorting to pick and choose when, the State Authorities have extended benefit to large number of daily wagers throughout the State to many similar incumbents, and therefore, remaining or left over incumbents, alike respondent-writ petitioner is entitled for same benefits, so as to give effect to the intent and spirit of the judgement dated 06.02.2025, in the case of Surajmani (supra), which ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 24 - stands reinforced on 26.05.2025 in case of Janak Dev Sharma (infra). Further, the denial of benefit shall certainly amount to treating “equals as unequal” and shall defeat the parity. Denial of benefits to the Respondent-writ petitioner shall perpetuate hostile discrimination within one homogenous class of daily wagers, who are entitled for work charged status after 8 years of daily waged service. Denial shall frustrate the spirit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In-addition, the conferment of work charge status involves pay fixation in the time scale of pay as admissible to corresponding category of employees from the date of completion of 8 years continuous daily/contingent paid w.e.f. 15.07.2005 and the pay fixation thereafter in terms of the revised pay scale notified in January 2022 w.e.f. 1.1.2016 and thereafter. Right of an in-service employee and for pay fixation and resultant right for higher retiral benefits, including higher pension upon superannuation gives rise to a recurring and continuing cause every month till day. In these circumstances, the impugned judgement, so far as it entitles the Respondent-writ petitioner for work ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 25 - charge status does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and the same is upheld. 10. Fourth contention of Learned State Counsel is that the State Authorities are aggrieved against operative part of directions contained in Para-10 of the Impugned Judgment dated 12.12.2023, entitling the Respondent-writ petitioner entitled for “restricted consequential benefits for three years prior to the filing of the writ petition [filed on 18.04.2018], by contending that these directions are contrary to the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Himachal Pradesh versus Ashwani Kumar [Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019, decided on 22.07.2019] and the judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh versus Surajmani and other connected cases [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, decided on 06.02.2025]. 10(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 Surajmani (supra), which reads as under: “8. However, in order to allay the ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 26 - 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 benefits of the order passed by the Tribunal and accordingly disposed of the said appeal. 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 ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 27 - 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 of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1].” 10(ii). Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has mandated in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 11170 of 2024, in Re; The State of H.P. & Ors. Versus Janak Dev Sharma, decided on 26.05.2025, mandating that the judgment in case of Surajmani (supra) is judgment in rem with the further mandate that 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 ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 28 - 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.” 10(iii). In the above backdrop, this Court is of the considered view, that the judgment in the case of Surajmani (supra) was “judgment in rem” declaring the law, covering twin aspects, firstly, 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 grant of work charge status. The directions contained in the Impugned Judgment, on the first aspect, regarding entitlement of daily wagers for grant of work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service, being inconsonance with the declaration of law in the case of Surajmani, (supra), needs no interference in these proceedings. On the second aspect, regarding the directions for granting “all consequential benefits” ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 29 - or “restricted consequential benefits for three years” is liable to be interfered with. Firstly, the directions to grant all consequential benefits is contrary to the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra) which limits the relief to “notional benefits”; and secondly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has mandated in Para 11 of the judgment in Surajmani (supra) reserving liberty to 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 charged status, with “notional benefits, which shall be in consonance with the mandate of Law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Ashwani Kumar (supra), which stands reinforced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surajmani (supra) and reiterated in the case of Janak Dev Sharma (supra). 10(iv). In above background, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Respondent-writ petitioner shall be entitled for work charge status from date ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 30 - of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service and upon grant of work charge status, the relief shall only be limited “to notional benefits”, in the light of the mandate of Law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ashwani Kumar (supra), which has been reinforced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra). IDENTICAL ISSUE DECIDED: 11. In an identical Intra Court Appeal, LPA No. 541 of 2025, State of Himachal Pradesh vs Krishani Devi, decided on 14.08.2025, this Court held the Respondent-employee entitled for work charged status from date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service; whereas, the directions regarding “restricted consequential benefits” for three years prior to filing of writ petition are set-aside by modifying the relief to “notional benefits”. CONCLUSION: 12. In view of above discussion, the directions contained in the Impugned Judgment, regarding the entitlement and grant of work charge status to the Respondent-writ petitioner [Sanjeev Kumar] from ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 31 - the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service is upheld. However, upon grant of work charge status, the resultant relief shall be limited only to “notional benefits” instead of the direction in operative part of impugned judgement for giving “restricted consequential benefits for three years prior to filing of the writ petition”, so as to bring the impugned judgement in tune with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases Ashwani Kumar (supra), which stands reinforced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surajmani (supra), and recently reiterated in Janak Dev Sharma (supra). 13. No other point was pressed/argued. DIRECTIONS: 14. In view of the above discussions and for reasons stated hereinabove, the instant appeal, is partly allowed, in following terms:- (i) Instant Appeal, LPA No.93 of 2025, is partly allowed; (ii) Impugned Judgment dated 12.12.2023 passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWPOA No.4228 of 2020, Sanjeev ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 32 - Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others; entitling the Respondent- writ petitioner [Sanjeev Kumar] for work- charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily/contingent paid service is upheld; (iii) State Authorities-appellants are directed to confer work-charged status as Sweeper [Class-IV] w.e.f. 15.07.2005 or like due date from date of completion of 8 years continuous daily/contingent paid service in applicable time-pay scale, by counting daily/contingent paid service w.e.f. 15.07.1997; (iv) Directions in Impugned Judgment giving “consequential benefits for three years prior to filing of petition” being contrary to judgements in the cases of Ashwani Kumar, Surajmani and Janak Dev Sharma (supra) is quashed and set-aside ; with modified relief of “notional benefits” from due date, but without any past arrears; (v) State Authorities shall comply directions contained herein, within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified/downloaded copy of this judgment; (vi) Parties to bear their respective costs. 15. In the aforesaid terms, the Letters Patent ( 2025:HHC:29205 ) - 33 - Appeal and all pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall stand disposed of, accordingly. (G.S. Sandhawalia) (Ranjan Sharma) Chief Justice Judge August 29, 2025 [tm]