2025:HHC:37261 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No.1023 of 2019 Decided on: 31.10.2025 __________________________________________________________ Shesh Ram and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?. No For the petitioner: Ms. Ranjana Pathania, Advocate, vice Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional Advocate General. Ranjan Sharma, Judge Petitioner Shesh Ram s/o Sh. Saran Dass and two others, namely, Devi Ram and Shesh Ram, s/o Sh. Jethu Ram, have come up before this Court, seeking the following reliefs:- “(i). That the respondent department may kindly be directed to grant regularization to the petitioners w.e.f. the year when they completed 8 years of daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar years as per the latest policy of the State Government adopted by the respondent department with all consequential benefits like arrears, seniority and other service benefits as per the directions of this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice and fair play. (ii). That the period of shortage to complete 240 days in the year 1996 in respect of the petitioners may kindly be condoned and they may kindly be ordered to be treated in 2025:HHC:37261 - 2 - continuous daily wage service from the date of their initial appointment with further direction to the respondents to grant them regularization after completion of 8 years of daily wage service with consequential benefits.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Grievance is that petitioner No.1, namely Shesh Ram S/o Sh. Saran Dass is that he was engaged in 1994 and has rendered continuous service of more than 240 days in each calendar year till 2006 [except for the year 1998] whereafter, he was regularized w.e.f. 12.09.2008 as Forest Worker in terms of the existing policy. Likewise, the petitioner No. 2-Devi Ram was engaged as daily wager during 1994 and had rendered continuous service with 240 days till the year 2006 [except in 1996, when, he served for 192 days]. Petitioner No.3-Shesh Ram S/o Sh. Jethu Ram was engaged in the year 1992 and he claims to have rendered continuous service with 240 days upto the year 2006 [except for 150 days in 1992, 112 days in 1993, 227 in 1995 and 217 days in 1997], which is borne out from the Mandays Chart [Annexures R-1 to R-3]. In this backdrop, the claim of the petitioners 1 & 2 is that they have rendered more than 8 years of continuous 2025:HHC:37261 - 3 - daily waged service as on 31.12.2004, the petitioner No.3 [Shesh Ram S/o Sh. Jethu Ram] had rendered 8 years of continuous daily waged service as on 31.12.2005 and the petitioners 1 &2 are entitled for regularization from the date they complete 8 years of continuous service i.e. w.e.f. 01.01.2005 and the petitioner No. 3 and w.e.f. 01.01.2006, with all consequential benefits. 3. Though the claim of petitioners is for regularization from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous service daily waged service, but, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, on Instructions, states that petitioners shall be satisfied, in case, the lesser relief of work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service is granted to them. [Statement Taken on Record]. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT: 4. Pursuant to issuance of notice on 30.07.2012, the State Authorities have filed Reply-Affidavit dated 22.11.2012, of Conservator of Forests. 4(i). Perusal of Reply-Affidavit indicates the State Authorities have admitted the factual matrix of the 2025:HHC:37261 - 4 - case. Mandays Chart [Annexures R-1 to R-3], admit that petitioners No.1 & 2 completed 8 years of continuous daily waged service from 1997 to 31.12.2004 and likewise the petitioner No.3 had rendered 8 years of continuous daily waged service from 1998 till 31.12.2005. So far as the claim for retrospective regularization is concerned, the State Authorities have stated that as per the regularization policy dated 23.06.2007 [Annexure R-IV], the petitioners were regularized w.e.f. 12.09.2007, against available vacant posts in terms of their seniority from a prospective date [as spelt out in Para 3 of Reply-Affidavit]. In this background, the State Authorities have prayed for the dismissal of writ petition, as retrospective regularization, cannot be granted/extended to the petitioners dehors the terms and conditions contained in the regularization policy [Annexure R-IV]. NO REBUTTAL-REJOINDER 5. Petitioners chose not to file a rebuttal- rejoinder, so as to controvert the stand of the State in the Reply-Affidavit. 6. Heard, Ms. Ranjana Pathania, Learned 2025:HHC:37261 - 5 - Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Navlesh Verma, Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents-State. ANALYSIS: 7. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the material on record this Court is of the considered view, that the claim for retrospective regularization from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service w.e.f. 01.01.2005 [in case of petitioners 1 & 2] and w.e.f. 01.01.2006 [in case of petitioner No.3], instead of the benefit of regularization granted w.e.f. 12.09.2007 is not tenable, for the reason, that the petitioners have not placed on record any material to show that on the date of completion of 8 years of continuous service, the petitioners were entitled for regularization automatically. Petitioners have not placed any material to show that the vacant posts were available or any junior incumbent was regularized between the period from 01.01.2005/01.01.2006 till the date of issuance of the regularization orders on 12.09.2007. Moreover, the regularization policy dated 2025:HHC:37261 - 6 - 18.06.2007 [Annexure R-4] provided that regularization will be from prospective effect and this condition not been assailed by the petitioners in the instant case. In these circumstances, the claim of petitioners for retrospective regularization, cannot be acceded to, dehors the terms-conditions contained in the regularization policy. 8. Faced with this situation, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, on Instructions of petitioners states that notwithstanding the claim for retrospective regularization, the petitioner shall be satisfied, in case they are granted the lesser relief of work charge status in terms of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Surajmani and other along with other connected matters. [Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, decided on 06.02.2025]. [Statement Taken on Record]. 8(i). Regarding the claim for work charge status, Learned State Counsel submits that since the plea for work charge status on completion of 8 years of continuous daily wages service has now been raised for the first time during the course of hearing today, 2025:HHC:37261 - 7 - therefore, the State Authorities may be permitted to examine the factual aspects, by directing the petitioners to make fresh representation, which shall be examined by the Respondents in the light of the judgment in the case of Surajmani (supra). 8(ii). The above stand of Learned State Counsel, appears to be genuine, for the reason, that the judgment in the case of Surajmani (supra) is a judgment in rem. Being a judgment in rem, the State Authorities are bound to extend the benefits flowing from aforesaid judgment to all daily wagers, irrespective of the departments. Even, the Division Bench of this Court, in various judgments in LPA No. 82 of 2025, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Pritam Chand, decided on 27.08.2025, LPA No. 100 of 2025, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Layak Ram, decided on 27.08.2025 and LPA No.231 of 2025, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Gita Ram Sharma, decided on 27.08.2025 has granted the benefit of work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service to other similarly 2025:HHC:37261 - 8 - placed incumbents in other Government Departments, including Forest Department. Even in the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar and Surajmani (supra) and the Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Pritam Chand, Layak Ram and Gita Ram Sharma (supra), it has been mandated that for conferring work charged status there is neither the requirement of work charge establishment nor abolition of work charge establishment on the conversion of work charge posts into regular post or otherwise shall not have any effect on entitlement of daily wages for work charge status. Denial of consideration and the resultant work charge status, upon due examination of the matter, shall tantamount to restricting or negating the effect and denying the benefit of work charge status and pay fixation from the due date in terms of the judgment in the case of Surajmani (supra). 9. In the above backdrop, this Court refrains from issuing a mandate to the State Authorities to confer work charge status automatically. However, this Court directs the petitioners to make a representation(s) 2025:HHC:37261 - 9 - for grant of work charge status from date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service to the Respondent No.2-Chief Conservator of Forests, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in terms of the judgment in the case of Surajmani (supra), and the State Authorities shall examine the same in light of the aforesaid judgment, expeditiously. DIRECTIONS: 10. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present petition is disposed of, in the following terms: “(i) Claim of petitioners for retrospective regularization from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous service [w.e.f. 01.01.2005 for petitioners No. 1 and 2] and from 01.01.2006 for petitioner No.3] is dismissed; (ii) As prayed, the Petitioners shall make representation(s) to Respondent No.2-Chief Conservator of Forests, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, asserting their claim for conferment of work charge status, from completion of 8 years of continuous service, in light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra), within two months from today; (iii) Upon consideration of representation(s) and acceptance of claim, the State Authorities shall grant work charge status to the petitioners [w.e.f. 01.01.2005 to petitioners No. 1 &2 and w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in case of petitioner No.3] with pay fixation from due date; (iv) Needless to say, that upon conferment of work 2025:HHC:37261 - 10 - charge status, the benefits shall accrue from due date notionally, without any past arrears; (v) Entire exercise be undertake within three months from today; (vi) 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 31st October, 2025 [himani]