IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.15452 of 2025 Decided on: 25.09.2025 _________________________________________________________________ [ Inder Singh ....Petitioner Versus HPSEBL & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Bonit Prakash, Advocate, vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Notice. Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, learned counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive relief:- “i) That respondents may be ordered to grant work charge status to the petitioner from the date he completed 8 years service with all benefits incidental thereof ” 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner and the relief prayed for, by him are covered by the decision rendered in The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Nanak Chand & Ors.2 In the aforesaid case, the respondent-Board had contended that the case in hand was distinct from State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Surajmani & Anr.3 as in the respondent-Board, work charge establishment was abolished in 1986, therefore, the directions given in Surajmani’’s Case (supra) cannot be applied, in the respondent-Board. The Hon’ble Apex Court rejected the contentions and held that the judgment in Surajmani’s Case (supra) squarely applies and the directions issued therein shall applicable mutatis mutandis to Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board as well . Relevant portion of the decision reads as under:- “2. In counter to the said argument, in the counter affidavit, Standing orders of the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Industrial Establishment framed in exercise of the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 have been shown whereby Clause 5(b) makes it clear that the Board shall have the following class of 2 3 2 workmen in different establishments. Clause 5(b) indicate work establishment having work charged work commission. The said fact has not been controverted except to say in the affidavit that they have abolished the work charged establishment in the year1986. In the list of date also, it is stated that the work charge establishment has been revised in 1987. 3. Considering all these aspects, there is no reason to take a different view from the case of Surajmani (supra). The operative portion of the judgment of Surajmani is reproduced for ready reference : "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 Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi [ (2006) 4 SCC 1]." 4. In our view, the judgment of Surajmani squarely 3 applies and the said directions shall be applicable mutatis mutandis in the case of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board also.” 4. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of relief as prayed for, by him, in light of the decision rendered in Nanak Chand’’s Case (supra), within a period six weeks from today. The decision, so taken, be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also, the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. ( Virender Singh ) Judge September 25, 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez) 4