2025:HHC:30130 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.14268 of 2025 Decided on: 04.09.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Desh Raj ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y. P. S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Considering the nature of the impugned order and the order being passed hereinafter, there is no necessity to call for reply from the respondents. 2. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and considered case file. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2025:HHC:30130 - 2 - 2(i). Desh Raj Vs. State of H.P. and Ors2 was instituted by the petitioner, seeking following substantive reliefs:- “I. That writ in certiorari may kindly be issued and the impugned office order dated 31.3.2016 (Annexure P-4), may kindly be quashed and set-aside, in the interest of justice. II. That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents that petitioner may kindly be deemed to be continued in service till attains the age of 60 years, with all consequential benefits with up-to-date interest i.e., pay-fixation, seniority, arrears of pay, revised pension, arrears of pension, revised gratuity in view of CWP No.2711/2017 titled as Baldev Vs State of H.P. (Annexure P-4) and clarification dated 28.04.2023 (Annexure P-5), in the interest of justice. III. That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and directing the respondents to count the daily wages/contingent service of the petitioner towards the qualifying service for the purpose of pension as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022 titled as Balo Devi Vs State of H.P., in the interest of justice. IV. That the respondents may kindly be directed to submit the case of petitioner for pension and release the pension w.e.f. 1.4.2018 to till date alongwith arrears with upto date interest, to secure the end of justice.” The writ petition was disposed of with directions to 2 CWP No.16688 of 2024, decided on 31.12.2024 2025:HHC:30130 - 3 - the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide petitioner’s representation dated 18.07.2024 in accordance with law within a period of six week. 2(ii) Petitioner, thereafter, preferred Desh Raj Vs. State of H.P. and Ors3. During hearing of Desh Raj3 (Execution Petition), respondents placed on record a copy of order passed by the Director, AAYUSH, Himachal Pradesh, on 12.08.2025, deciding petitioner’s representation. Taking note of the same Desh Raj3 (Execution Petition) was disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy for redressal of his surviving grievances, including against the consideration order, passed by the Director AAYUSH, H.P. in accordance with law. Petitioner now has instituted this writ petition, feeling aggrieved against the order passed the Director AAYUSH, H.P. on 12.08.2025. 3. In the impugned order dated 12.08.2025, respondent No.2-the Director AAYUSH, H.P. has declined to count the work charge service of the petitioner for pensionary purposes for the reason that in The State of 3 Ex. Pet No.264 of 2025, decided on 13.08.2025 2025:HHC:30130 - 4 - Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Versus Surajmani & Anr.4, directions have not been issued for counting of work charge service for pensionary purposes. 4. Declining to count work charge service for pensionary purposes only for the reason that there was no such direction in Surajmani4 is wholly misconceived. Surajmani’s4 case did not pertain to counting of work charge service towards pension. Said case pertains to a different subject matter, essentially involving conferment of work charge status simplicitor. Just because in one judgment, the issue of counting of work charge service for the purpose of pension/pensionary benefit was not involved and, therefore, the said decision did not contain any observation about counting of work charge status for the purpose of pension, would not mean that work charge service is not to be counted for the purpose of pension, more so, when the law is otherwise well settled that work charge service is liable to be counted towards pension. Law in this regard laid down by this Court as also by the Hon’ble Apex Court had been summarized in Naina 4 Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, decided alongwith connected civil appeals on 06.02.2025 2025:HHC:30130 - 5 - Devi Vs. State of H.P. and Ors5 as under:- “7. In State of H.P. and others vs. Sukru Ram and another, CMPM no.423 of 2017, decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.5.2017, it was held as under: “The issue is no longer res integra, which stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Punjab State Electricity Board and another v. Narata Singh and another, (2010) 4 SCC 317, as also earlier decision of this Court in CWP No.2240 of 2008, titled as The State of H.P. and others v. Sh. Tulsi Ram, decided on 31.5.2012, in which learned Single Judge, while holding the service rendered by the writ petitioner on work-charged basis from 1.4.2001 to 2.4.2017 to be counted for the purpose of pension” 8. Later in State of H.P. & others vs. Matwar Singh & another, CWP No. 2384 of 2018, decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 18.12.2018, it was held as under:- “It is by now well settled that the work charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component of qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. Executive instructions, if any, issued by the Finance Department to the contrary, are liable to be ignored/struck down, in the light of view taken by this Court in CWP No.6167 of 2017, titled Sukru Ram vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 6th March, 2013. A Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Keshar Chand vs. State of Punjab through the Secretary P.W.D. B & R Chandigarh and others, (1988) 94(2) PLR 223, also dealt with an 5 CWP No.2960 of 202, decided on 09.08.2024 2025:HHC:30130 - 6 - identical issue where Rule 3.17 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules excluded the work charge service for the purpose of qualifying service. Setting aside the said Rule being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, it was held that the work charge service followed by regular appointment will count towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. The aforesaid view was also confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.” 9. Similarly, in CWP No.2956 of 2019, decided on 13.7.2021, another Division Bench of this Court observed as under:- “It has also been contended by respondents that the petitioners were granted work charge status only vide order dated 13.10.2015 and the expression used therein was “work charge regularization”. In any case, be it conferment of work charge status or regularization in favour of petitioner vide office order dated 13.10.2015, the same will not affect the outcome of this petition. In view of the law laid down by this Court in CWP No.6167 of 2017, titled Sukru Ram vs. State of H.P. & Ors., CWP No.2384 of 2018 titled State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Matwar Singh and also by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Singh Vs. State of H.P. (2019) 10 SCC 516, the work charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component for qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits.” Thus, it is more than settled now that work charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component for qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. 10. It is also apt to reproduce the observations made by 2025:HHC:30130 - 7 - Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-31 of the judgment rendered in case of Prem Singh vs. State of U.P. & others 2019 (10) SCC 516, which read as under:- “In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it was unfair on the part of the State Government and its officials to take work from the employees on the work-charged basis. They ought to have resorted to an appointment on regular basis. The taking of work on the work-charged basis for long amounts to adopting the exploitative device. Later on, though their services have been regularized. However, the period spent by them in the work-charged establishment has not been counted towards the qualifying service. Thus, they have not only been deprived of their due emoluments during the period they served on less salary in work-charged establishment but have also been deprived of counting of the period for pensionary benefits as if no services had been rendered by them. The State has been benefitted by the services rendered by them in the heydays of their life on less salary in work-charged establishment”. 11. Once the work charge employment of the petitioner is held liable to be counted for the grant of pensionary benefits to her, as a natural corollary, she will be governed under CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and the Contributory Pension Scheme will not be applicable to her.” Respondent No.2 is head of the respondent- AAYUSH Department. The said office, which must be dealing with such like cases in routine, ought to have the basic knowledge of law on work charge service, that the same is 2025:HHC:30130 - 8 - required to be taken into consideration for grant of pension. Rejecting the case of the petitioner for counting of work charge service towards pensionary benefits, only on the ground that in Surajmani4 no such direction was issued, is an untenable stand. 5. Consequently, this writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/-. Impugned order dated 12.08.2025, is quashed and set aside to the extent it declines to count the work charge service rendered by the petitioner for pensionary purposes. Work charge service rendered by the petitioner is liable to be counted towards pension and pensionary benefits. Respondent No.2 is accordingly directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and pass necessary and appropriate orders in that regard within three weeks from today. The order so passed, be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge September 4, 2025 R.Atal