( 2025:HHC:31090 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.142 of 2022 Decided on: 21.07.2025 __________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ...Appellants Versus Nadini Thakur ….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: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Hitesh Kumar, Advocate. Ranjan Sharma, Judge De-linked from CWP No.2281 of 2020. 2. State Authorities have come up before this Court in the instant appeal, assailing the Impugned Judgment dated 13.05.2021 “hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Judgment” passed by Learned Single Judge in CWPOA No.1633 of 2019, In Re; Nandini Thakur Versus State of H.P. and others, in quashing the Impugned Rejection Order dated 25.10.2012 [Annexure P-6] in directing the State Authorities to confer work 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:31090 ) - 2 - charge status to the Respondent-Employee as Complaint Attendant from the date she completed 8 years of continuous with 240 days in each calendar year with all consequential benefits. FACTUAL MATRIX : 3. Precisely, the case of the Appellants-State Authorities is that Respondent-Writ Petition had served as a Complaint Attendant, Class-III, on daily wage basis in April, 1992 and was thereafter posted/engaged as Inquiry Attendant, Class-IV, in July, 1992, and worked as Class-IV till November, 1993. In December, 1993, the Respondent-Writ Petitioner was again engaged as Complaint Attendant, Class-III and she completed continuous service from 01.01.1994 onwards till regularization. It is in this background Learned Single Judge, passed direction for conferring work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous service by taking the service from April 1992 for all purposes w.e.f. 1.1.2002 with all consequential benefits. 4. Heard, Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Learned Deputy Advocate General, for the Petitioners-State and Mr. Hitesh Kumar, Learned Counsel, for the Respondent. ( 2025:HHC:31090 ) - 3 - 5. Upon listing of instant appeal, Learned Counsel appearing for the parties jointly represented that the matter in issue in 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], wherein, daily wagers have been held entitled for conferment of work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service on “notional basis”. 6. 6. Identical issue originating from the order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal dated 09.07.2019 became the subject matter of this Court in CWP No.2281 of 2020 [arising out of O.A. No. 1077 of 2017, In Re; State of H.P. and another Versus All Himachal P.W.D.-I.P.H. & Contractual Workers Union and another connected matters, wherein this Court, after detailed discussion recorded the findings, based on the declaration of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra), which was reinforced in the case of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary ( 2025:HHC:31090 ) - 4 - No (s). 11170 of 2024, in Re; The State of H.P. & Ors. Versus Janak Dev Sharma, entitling the daily wage workers for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service with higher pay fixation benefits from the due date. The reasoning recorded by this Court in CWP No. 2281 of 2020, All Himachal P.W.D.-I.P.H. & Contractual Workers Union [supra] regarding the entitlement of Respondent-Employee for work charge status shall apply to the instant case also, as the factual and legal matrix is pari materia. DIRECTIONS: 7. In view of above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant appeal is partly allowed, in the following terms:- (i) Instant Appeal, LPA No.142 of 2022 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Nandini Thakur, is partly allowed; (ii) Impugned Judgment dated 13.05.2021 passed by Learned Single Judge in CWPOA No.1633 of 2019, In Re; Nandini Thakur Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, entitling the Respondent-Employee for work charge ( 2025:HHC:31090 ) - 5 - status as Complaint Attendant from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous service is upheld; (iii) Directions contained in Para-18 of the Impugned Judgement granting all consequential benefits, shall stand modified to “notional benefits”, in the light of judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Surajmani [supra] Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025 decided on 06.02.2025 and reiterated in the case of Janak Dev Sharma [supra]; (iv) State Authorities shall comply with the directions contained herein, within six weeks from receipt of certified/ downloaded copy of this judgment; (v) Parties to bear their respective costs. 7. In the aforesaid terms, the instant appeal and all pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall stand disposed of, accordingly. (G.S. Sandhawalia) (Ranjan Sharma) Chief Justice Judge July 21, 2025 [tm/Bhardwaj]