2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.2281 of 2020 alongwith CWP Nos.2296 and 2297 of 2020 Decided on: 21.07.2025 ____________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 2281 of 2020 State of Himachal Pradesh & another ...Petitioners Versus All Himachal P.W.D.-I.P.H. & Contractual Workers Union and another ….Respondents __ 2. CWP No. 2296 of 2020 State of Himachal Pradesh & another ...Petitioners Versus Rajinder Kumar & others ….Respondents AND 3. CWP No. 2297 of 2020 State of Himachal Pradesh & another ...Petitioners Versus Nand Lal & others ….Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. Yes For the petitioners: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, in all the petitions. For the respondents: Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, in CWP No.2281 of 2020. None for respondents in CWP Nos. 2296 and 2297 of 2020. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 2 - Ranjan Sharma, Judge State of Himachal Pradesh, being the Writ Petitioners herein, has come up before this Court assailing the common order dated 09.07.2019 Annexure P-1, “hereinafter referred to as Impugned Order” passed in Original Application No. 1077 of 2017, In re: All Himachal PWD-IPH & Contractual Workers and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another ; Original Application No. 6711 of 2017 Rajinder Kumar and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another; and Original Application No. 2586 of 2018, Nand Lal and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, whereby, Learned State Administrative Tribunal [since abolished] has directed the Petitioner-State Authorities to regularize the services of the Respondents -Original Applicants herein, on completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service with consequential benefits, inaccordance with law, within three months; with further directions that actual financial benefits will be restricted to 3 years prior to filing of the Original Applications by the Respondents-Employees- 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 3 - Original Applicants. 2. Since the factual matrix as well as the controversy involved in all above cases is similar, therefore, this Court proceeds to decide these writ petitions by a common judgment, by taking CWP No. 2281 of 2020, as the “Lead Case’’. FACTUAL MATRIX IN OA No. 1077 OF 2017 BEFORE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL: 3. In OA No 1077 of 2017, the Respondents -Original Applicants, being 116 in number have set up a case before the State Administrative Tribunal (since abolished) in O.A. No. 1077 of 2017, that they were engaged as Class-III Daily Wager Employees i.e. Pump Operators, Complaint Attendants, Electricians, Work Inspectors, Masons, Fitters and Water Work Clerks in Irrigation and Public Health Department [now Jal Shakti Vibhag] under the State Government from 1993 to 1995 and after rendering more than 10-12 years of continuous daily waged service they were regularized as Class-III Employees in the year 2006 prospectively. These employees claimed that though they had completed 8 years of continuous daily waged service with 240 days in each calendar 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 4 - year and were eligible for grant of regularization/ work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service with higher pay fixation and other admissible service benefits but the Petitioners-State Authorities rejected the claim on 03.03.2017 [Annexure A-4 in writ file], on the ground that once the work charged established in case of Class-III Employees stood was abolished on 19.06.2001 ignoring the fact that work charged cadre in the case of Class-III workers was only abolished on 31.05.2006 (at page 119 of paper-book) and even the State Authorities had filed a Reply Affidavit in another CWP No 4589 of 2012, titled as Vinay Kumar versus State (at page 113 of paper -book), which led to passing of the judgement on 27.10.2014, (at page 125 & 126 of paper-book vide Annexure A-5 & A-6 in paper book) stating that work charged cadre was abolished and these work charged posts were posts were converted into regular establishment on 31.05.2006 coupled with the fact that once the work charged status was granted to other Class-III daily wagers then, the 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 5 - rejection orders, denial of similar benefit of work charged status with pay fixation to the Respondents- Employees was illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unsustainable. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES BEFORE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN O.A. NO.1077 OF 2017: 3(i). In reply filed to O.A. No. 1077 of 2017, filed on the Affidavit of Deputy Secretary [IPH] dated 31.10.2018 and in Para 4 of Preliminary Submissions and Para 3 and Para 5 (IV to VI) of the Reply on merits, the stand of the State Authorities was that the case of the Respondents- Employees for conferment of work-charge status was under consideration of the government and if found eligible, the cases of the Respondent-Employees and other left out similarly placed daily wagers would be considered for conferment of work charge status as per their eligibility from due date on ‘notional basis’. So far as the claim for giving retrospective regularization is concerned, it was stated in Para 5 (VI), of the Reply Affidavit, that the claim for retrospective regularization from date of 8 years 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 6 - of daily waged service was not tenable, as the regularization was to have prospective effect only, in terms of the Policy. However, in terms of the judgement in the case of Rakesh Kumar (CWP 2735 of 2010, supra) the matter for conferment of work charged status was under consideration of the Government and in this background, prayer was made for dismissal of the Original Application. IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.07.2019 PASSED BY STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL: 4. Based on pleadings {Original Application Reply-Affidavit etc.}, all the three connected Original Applications were allowed by the State Administrative Tribunal on 09.07.2019 [Annexure P-1 in paper book], whereby, the State Authorities-Petitioners were directed to confer regularization/work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous service with all consequential benefits and actual financial benefits were restricted to 3 years prior to filing of the Original Applications, in the following terms:- “13. The daily wagers were entitled to benefit of the policy extended from time to time. The daily wagers on completion 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 7 - of requisite term are entitled to benefit of such policy. The respondents had not conferred regularization in terms of Rakesh Kumar’s case. Hence, the applicants are clearly entitled for regularization on completion of 8 years’ service in terms of the policy. 14. Consequently, the original applications are allowed and the respondents are directed to regularize services of the applicants on completion of 8 years with all consequential benefits in accordance with law within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order and actual financial benefits will be restricted to three years prior to filing of the original application(s).” WRIT PETITION ASSAILING IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.07.2019 (ANNEXURE P-1), PASSED BY ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL: 5. In CWP No. 2281 of 2020, the Petitioners- State Authorities, in the Lead Case as well as in other two cases, assailing the Impugned Order dated 09.07.2019, Annexure P-1 herein, on the ground, that once the Respondents-Employees stood regularized in the year 2006 prospectively in terms of the policy therefore, Impugned Order dated 09.07.2019, Annexure P-1, passed by Learned State Administrative Tribunal directing regularization from earlier date, ignoring other conditions and requirements in the policy was assailed in instant proceedings and was prayed to be set-aside. 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 8 - STAND OF RESPONDENTS-EMPLOYEES IN INSANT WRIT PETITION: 6. In Reply to CWP No. 2281 of 2020, the Respondents-Employees filed a Reply stating that they were engaged on daily wage basis as Class-III in different capacities, between 1993 to 1995 and though they were regularized during 2006 and 2007 after more than 10-12 years of continuous service, yet, they have a right to claim work charge status in terms of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2735 of 2010, In Re; Rakesh Kumar Versus State of H.P. & Ors. [Annexure R-1]. It is averred that State Authorities have issued regularization policy on 03.04.2000, which was modified on 06.05.2000 and the same remained in force till 09.06.2006 which also enabled daily wagers, including Class-III daily wagers for work charged status on completion of 8 years continuous service. It is averred in Para 8 of Reply that even the State Authorities have admitted before the State Administrative Tribunal that work charge posts in case of Class-III categories were converted to regular posts on 31.05.2006 and, 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 9 - therefore, the claim for work charge status prior to 31.05.2006 holds the ground. In Para 15 of Reply-Affidavit, the Respondents-Employees herein, have taken a stand that even the State Authorities through its Secretary [IPH] has taken a decision on 07.01.2020, {Annexure P-4 at Page 165 of paper-book} which was endorsed by Engineer-in-Chief (IPH/JSV) on 16.01.2020 [Annexure R-3 with Reply-Affidavit, at page 196 of paper book], decided that to grant work charge status to daily wagers in Class-III category from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service upto 31.05.2006, notwithstanding the fact that that were regularized also. In Paras-16 and 17 of the Reply-Affidavit it was averred by the Respondents-Employees that decision dated 31.05.2006 to abolish or to convert work charge posts into regular posts, cannot be a ground for denying work charge status. 6(ii). Respondents-Employees have averred that after passing of Impugned Order by Learned State Administrative Tribunal in OA No 1077 of 2017 on 09.07.2019, [Annexure P-1], Respondents-Employees 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 10 - had filed an Execution Petition No. 123 of 2019 and in Para-4 of Execution Petition, the State Authorities have taken a specific stand that though State Administrative Tribunal had directed to grant benefit of regularization retrospectively yet, in compliance to communications dated 07.01.2020 and 16.01.2020 Respondents-Employees were granted work charged status and higher pay fixation from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service as per orders dated 27.02.2020 [Annexure R-4 (colly)], from due date from the period from 01.01.2002 to 01.01.2004 yet, the State Authorities-Petitioners took a decision on 02.06.2021 [Annexure R-6/T with Reply], withdrawing work charge status granted to the Class-III incumbents, including the Respondents- Employees herein, in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and by ignoring the mandate of law as referred to above, illegally. AMENDMENT OF INSTANT WRIT PETITION BY PETITIONERS STATE : 7. After issuing the orders dated 02.06.2021 withdrawing the work charge status and the higher pay fixation, the Petitioners-State Authorities filed a 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 11 - CMP No 14463 of 2021, seeking amendment in the writ petition, by inserting Paras 4 (E) to (J) in the writ petition, to assert that since the policy dated 09.06.2006 [Annexure P-V], did not provide for giving work charge status therefore, Respondents -Employees are not entitled for grant of work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous service, by asserting that the work charge status given inadvertently stands withdrawn by the State Authorities on 2.06.2021 [Annexure P- 6/Annexure R-6]. It is in these circumstances, that the Petitioners-State Authorities have asserted in the Amended Writ Petition that the Impugned order directing the State Authorities to grant regularization and the orders issued in February/March 2020 [Annexure R-4, colly] granting work charge status as Class-III from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous service between 01.01.2002 to 1.1.2004 and in giving higher pay fixation benefits were inadvertently granted and even work charged status is not admissible to the Respondents-Employees herein. 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 12 - REPLY TO THE AMENDED PETITION BY RESPONDENTS-EMPLOYEES: 8. Respondents-Employees filed a Reply to Amended Writ Petition stating that once the work charge establishment in case of Class-III Employees was abolished by converting work charged posts to regular cadre on 31.05.2006 and the Respondents -Employees had completed 8 years of continuous service prior to 31.05.2006 ; and coupled with the fact that even if the policy dated 09.06.2006, Annexure P-V, excluded the nomenclature of “work charge” then, such exclusion was immaterial, when, Respondent Employees in terms of 8 years policy dated 3.4.2000 enabled the benefit of regularization and work charged status in case of those daily waged workers who were engaged on or after 1.1.1994 and had rendered requisite 8 years of continuous daily waged service thereafter ; and based on these facts and communications dated 07.01.2020 and 16.01.2020, the benefit of work charged status was granted and higher pay fixation was also done by issuing necessary orders between February to March, 2020 then, the extended benefits could not 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 13 - be withdrawn on 02.06.2021 illegally and in violation of the principles of natural justice and moreover, when, the aforesaid withdrawal amounts to defeating the mandate of law by the Honble Supreme Court as well as by this Court and such withdrawal results in relegating the Respondents Employees from work charge to daily wagers again and visit them with civil consequences. In this background, it was contented that once the State Authorities had assailed the order qua grant of retrospective regularization but keeping in view the subsequent events, once the lesser relief of work charge status was accorded but the same was illegally withdrawn by the State authorities, against which this Court, passed an order on 20.10.2021 restraining the Petitioners-State Authorities from withdrawing the work charge status and also from affecting recoveries from the Respondents-Employees herein, in the following terms:- “Learned Additional Advocate General prays for an adjournment. Prayer allowed, as not opposed. List on 12.11.2021. However, in the meanwhile, in continuation to order dated 04.09.2020, we restrain the respondents from affecting any recovery(ies) from the petitioner(s) or withdrawing work charge status only on the basis of judgment passed 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 14 - by the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal.” MATTER IN ISSUE COVERED BY JUDGMENT IN SURAJMANI [CIVIL APPEAL No.1595 OF 2025] DECIDED ON 06.02.2025: 9. At this stage, Learned Counsel for the Respondents Employees, in Lead Case, herein, has stated that based on subsequent events, the matter in issue regarding the grant/restoration of the benefit of work charged status, as Class-III to the Respondents-Employees in the instant writ petition(s) 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]. 10. Heard, Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Learned Deputy Advocate General, for the Petitioners-State [in all the writ petitions] and Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Learned Counsel, for the Respondents-Employees [in Lead Case in CWP No. 2281 of 2020]. CONTENSIONS OF THE STATE AUTHORITIES- PETITIONERS BASED ON AMENDED WRIT PETITION : 11. In instant writ petition, though the State 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 15 - Authorities have assailed the Impugned order dated 09.07.2019, whereby, Learned State Administrative Tribunal had directed the State Authorities to grant regularization to respondents-Employees herein, on completion of 8 years of continuous service. During the pendency of the instant writ petition the State Authorities granted the work charged status and also the higher pay fixation in month of February- March 2020 {Annexure R-4, colly}, between 1.1.2002 to 1.1.2004 as Class-III from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service. However, these benefits were withdrawn by the State authorities on 02.06.2021 [Annexure P-VI] with the plea that work charged status was inadvertently granted and the same was not admissible to the Respondents- Employees, on the ground that firstly, work charged incumbency was excluded from the regularization policy dated 09.06.2006, Annexure P-V; and secondly, work charged establishment in the case of Class-III was abolished on 19.06.2001; and thirdly, grant of work charge status was contrary to the judgment in the case of Jaswant Singh and others versus 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 16 - Union of India and Others, (1979) 4 SCC 440 ; and fourthly, the impugned order dated 09.07.2019 granting consequential financial benefits for 3 years prior to the filing of the original application was erroneous, being contrary to the mandate of Law, in State of Himachal Pradesh versus Surajmani and other connected matters [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025 decided on 06.02.2025]. ANALYSIS OF GROUNDS IN AMENDED PETITION AND CONTENTIONS RAISED: 12. First contention of Learned State Counsel is that the Respondents-Employees were directed to be granted regularization and were in-fact granted work charged status and higher pay fixation in February-March 2020 {Annexure R-4, colly}, between 1.1.2002 to 1.1.2004 as Class-III erroneously, which was withdrawn on 02.06.2021 [Annexure P-6], on the ground that the work charged incumbency was excluded from the regularization policy dated 09.06.2006, Annexure P-V. The above contention is misconceived for the reason, that though the Respondents-Employees were engaged as Class-III daily wagers during 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 17 - the years 1993-1995 and were regularized after more than 10-12 years during the year 2006, yet, they have a right to be considered and granted work charged status from the date of completion of 8 years of daily waged service. Even, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has mandated in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs Gehar Singh (2007) 12 SCC 43. Even the plea of the Petitioners-State Authorities that the work charge incumbency was excluded in regularization policy issued on 09.06.2006, Annexure P-V, cannot be a ground to negate the entitlement of work charge status, which had accrued /become due to the Respondents-Employees herein, from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service coupled with the fact that the work charge status stood granted between the period from 1.1.2001 to 1.1.2004 to the Respondents- Employees herein, by issuing the necessary orders in the month of February-March 2020, Annexure R-4, colly. That being so, the order dated 02.06.2021, Annexure P-VI, annexed with Amended Writ Petition, withdrawing the work charged status in violation of 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 18 - principles of natural justice and in contravention of the mandate of law in Mool Raj Upadhayaya versus State of Himachal Pradesh, (1994) Supp (2) SCC 316; and in State of Himachal Pradesh vs Gehar Singh (2007) 12 SCC 43 ; and judgement passed by the Division bench of this Court in in CWP No. 3111 of 2016, State of Himachal Pradesh vs Ashwani Kumar, mandating that 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 and when, the Civil Appeal filed by the State Authorities was dismissed by the Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Himachal Pradesh versus Ashwani Kumar, [Civil Appeal No 5753 of 2019, decided on 22.07.2019]. The right and entitlement for work charged status from date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service, which was subject matter in LPA No. 165 of 2021 State of Himachal 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 19 - Pradesh versus Surajmani and another which stands affirmed by the Honble 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. In above background the contention of Learned State Counsel cannot sustain and the Respondents-Employees herein, are held entitled for work charged status, as Class-III, in their respective category, and the adversial order dated 02.06.2021 Annexure P-VI cannot be permitted to operate dehors the mandate of law as referred to above. 13. Second contention of Learned State Counsel is that work charge status cannot be granted after abolition of work charged status on 19.06.2001 in case of Class-III daily wagers-Respondents-Employees. The above plea is misconceived for the reason that firstly, the work charge establishment for Class-III Daily Wagers was abolished only on 31.05.2006; and secondly, even a perusal of the communication dated 31.05.2006 [Annexure A-7 at page 119 of writ file] establishes that work charge 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 20 - status for the Class-III category was abolished on 31.05.2006; and thirdly, even the State Authorities- Petitioners have filed a Reply-affidavit in CWP No. 4589 of 2012, [at page 110-111] and the judgement passed in said case on 27.10.2014, [at page 125 of writ file] that the work charge establishment in case of Class-III Daily Wagers was abolished on 31.05.2006; and fourthly, a perusal of communication dated 30.07.2018 [Annexure R-2 in writ file at page 193] states that the process for conferring the work charge status was directed to be undertaken in case of those employees who have completed 8 years of continuous service as Class-III before abolition of Class-III establishment on 31.05.2006; and fifthly, even a perusal of the communication dated 07.01.2020 at page 165 of writ file] issued by the State Authorities through its Secretary (IPH /JSV) mandates to confer work charge status to Class-III Daily Wagers on completion of 8 years of daily wage service prior to 31.05.2006 i.e. date of conversion of work charged Staff Class-III into regular establishment on notional basis; and sixthly, even 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 21 - Engineer in Chief had issued another communication on 16.01.2020 [Annexure R-3 at page 196 of paper book] to confer the work charge status to Class-III Daily Wagers upto 31.05.2006; and seventhly, though Petitioners-State Authorities have asserted that work charge establishment in respect of Class-III was abolished on 19.06.2021 but no such decision or notification has been placed on record to establish that the work charged cadre in case of Class-III was abolished on the said day; and eighthly, notwithstanding the above, the action of the State Authorities in denying or curtailing or negating the work charge status cannot sustain in view of the mandate of law in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra), for the reason that, for conferment of work charge status there was neither the need for work charge establishment nor cessation or abolition would make any difference and there was no requirement for creation or availability of a post for conferment of such work charge status to daily wagers in the State and ninthly, State Authorities have stated in Reply Affidavit dated 31.10.2018, Annexure P-3 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 22 - {filed to OA No 1077 of 2017 at Pages 143, 145 and 151 of paper book} that case of Respondents- Employees for conferment of work-charge status was under consideration of the government and if found eligible, the cases of Respondent-Employees and other left out similarly daily wagers would be considered for conferment of work charge status as per their eligibility from due date on ‘notional basis} ; and lastly, once the entitlement of the daily wagers for work charged status, {be it as Class-III or Class-IV} from date of completion of 8 years of daily waged service with higher pay benefits stands affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra) [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025 and other connected matters, decided on 06.02.2025], and therefore, the State Authorities cannot be permitted either to take away, curtail, restrict, negate or nullify the mandate of the judgment(s) or to deny and deprive the Respondents-Employees herein, of the rights and legal entitlements accruing and flowing to them, from the aforesaid judgment(s). In these circumstances, the adversial order dated 02.06.2021, 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 23 - Annexure P-VI, which tends to withdraw the work charge status already granted in February-March 2020, Annexure R-4 colly, from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service to the Respondents-Employees herein and/or which tends to deny the said work status to similarly placed left out or remaining incumbents from due date, cannot sustain. In these circumstances, the adversial order dated 02.06.2021, Annexure P-VI in Amended Writ Petition, denying or negating the benefit of work charge status either to the Respondents-Employees as Class-III employees from due date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service or to other similarly placed left out/remaining incumbents, by giving a complete go-bye to the mandate of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra) cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. Accordingly, the aforesaid order dated 02.06.2021 Annexure P-VI, is declared inoperative and ineffective for all intents and purposes, so far as it negates or denies or takes away or withdraws either the 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 24 - work charged status already granted or resultant benefit of higher pay fixation already granted in applicable pay scale to Class-III daily wages, alike the Respondents-Employees herein. Once the foundational order dated 02.06.2021 {Annexure P-VI} is declared inoperative and ineffective, therefore, all subsequent adversial orders based on foundational order will ipso-facto give way and the same cannot stand to the prejudice and disadvantage of the Respondents- Employees herein. Ordered accordingly. 14. Third contention of Learned State Counsel is that the Impugned judgement granting the work charge status is erroneous, being contrary to the judgment in the case of Jaswant Singh and others vs Union of India and Others, (1979) 4 SCC 440. The above contention is misconceived for the reason, that the judgment in the case of Jaswant Singh is distinguishable on facts; and even a perusal of Paras 2 and 3 of the judgment in case of Jaswant Singh [supra] indicates that entire strength of employees was work charged engaged 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 25 - for execution of specified work in the project i.e. Beas Project ; and upon completion of work for which they were employed their services automatically came to an end ; and their pay and allowances was chargeable against separate head of cost of work ; and aforesaid judgment covered only those work charged employees whose conditions of service were governed by Award of 1974 and such employees were neither entitled to relief of payment of gratuity act nor any other retrenched benefits by the respective employer. Thus, the plea set up by the petitioners on the basis of Jaswant Singh’s case is devoid of any merit and is turned down, in facts of instant matter. CONCEPT OF WORK CHARGE STATUS IN STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH: 14(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 “scheme for the betterment of skilled and unskilled 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 26 - 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 Bench of this Court in the case of Gauri Dutt & 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 27 - 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: 14(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 as to whether work charge establishment exists 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 28 - 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. 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 would mean that an employee would get regular scale of pay. 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 29 - 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 particular year. Normally, work-charged status is conferred upon a daily-wager, on accrual of his right for regularization, 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 30 - 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 would be entitled to other consequential benefits for which a daily-waged employee is not entitled. 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 31 - 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 establishment. The said fact has not been considered in Rakesh Kumar’s case. In fact, in Rakesh Kumar’s case, this issue was not adjudicated but without 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 32 - 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.” 14(iii). Even, the issue regarding conferment of work charge status to daily wagers on completion of 8 years continuous service stands adjudicated by this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar [CWP No.2735 of 2010, against which SLP (C) No. 8830- 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 33 - 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 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, mandating that 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 judgment 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 order/directions passed by the Learned State Administrative Tribunal, which were upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3111 of 2016, entitling daily wagers for work charge status from an earlier date despite having 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 34 - been regularized prospectively subsequently were not interfered by the Honble Supreme Court whereas the directions regarding “all consequential benefits” were modified by entitling the daily wagers for the limited relief of work charge status with “notional benefits” only. Recently the directions passed by the Honble Supreme Court in case of Ashwani Kumar [supra], were again reinforced in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh versus Surajmani [supra], [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, arising from SLP (C) 23016 of 2023, originating 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 Respondents-Employees herein and other similar 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 35 - daily wagers/muster-roll workers serving in all the 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 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 when, this plea stands negated by this Court in the judgment 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 the judgments subsequent thereto, as 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 36 - referred to above. In these circumstances, this Court has reiterated that for the purposes of conferment of work charge status to all the daily wagers in the State of Himachal Pradesh, there was neither any need for work charge establishment nor would cessation or its abolition of such establishment or conversion thereof would make any difference and even there was no pre-requirement for creation of post and the availability or non-availability of a post would have any impact for conferring such status. Recently, the Honble Supreme Court has mandated in the case of Surajmani [supra], which is a judgement in rem, by entitling the daily wagers for work charged status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous service therefore, in these circumstances, the rights and benefits accruing from the declaration of law, as per the judgement in rem, can neither be taken away, restricted, curtailed nor can such legal entitlements be negated/denied to the daily wagers like the Respondents-Employees herein. Denial of work charge status shall certainly defeat the mandate of the judgment by resorting 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 37 - to pick and choose when, the State Authorities have extended the benefit of work charged status to a large number of daily wagers throughout the State. Denial of benefit shall certainly amount to treating “equals as unequal” and shall defeat the parity. Denial of the benefit of the work charge status to Respondents-Employees-original applicants herein, shall also lead to 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 since the conferment of work charge status involves pay fixation in time scale of pay as is admissible to the corresponding category of employees from the date of completion of 8 years continuous daily waged, which in the instant case is between the period from 1.1.2002 to 1.1.2004 and thereafter in the revised scale notified in the year 2009 w.e.f 01.01.2006 and again revised as per the notification issued in January 2022 w.e.f. 01.01.2016 till day. Right of an in-service employee(s) for pay fixation 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 38 - and the resultant right for higher retiral benefits, including the benefit of higher pension rise to a recurring and continuing cause every month till day. In these circumstances, the right and entitlement of the Respondents-Employees-Original Applicants for work charge status as Class-III from due date is upheld. 15. Last contention of Learned State Counsel is that impugned order dated 09.07.2019 granting consequential financial benefits for 3 years prior to filing of petition or original application was erroneous even if direction for regularization or grant of work charged status was accordable, being contrary to the mandate of law in case of Surajmani (supra) [i.e. Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025 decided on 06.02.2025]. 15(i). For appreciating the contention of Learned State Counsel, even if regularization is not gone into, due to subsequent events, but the issue and claim, right and entitlement for conferment of work charge status is looked into in view of the material on record then, it is necessary to have a recap 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 39 - of Paras 8, 10 and 12 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Surajmani (supra), which reads as under: “8. However, in order to allay the 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 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 40 - 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… 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].” 15(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 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 41 - 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 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.” 15(iii). In the above backdrop, this Court is of the considered view, that the judgment in the case of Surajmani (supra) is a “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, the issue as to what benefits were to accrue viz. is, actual or notional, upon grant of work charge status. The claim 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 case of Surajmani, 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 42 - (supra), has force and the benefits granted during the pendency of the instant writ petition are upheld. On the second aspect, regarding the claim or directions for granting “all consequential benefits” 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, directions to limit relief to “notional benefits” was based on findings recorded in Para 8 of the judgment in the case of Surajmani (supra), mandating that the daily wagers who were not regularly appointed or were appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme should not be granted extra benefits, which will burden the State Exchequer and it is primarily in this backdrop, that succor was given to the State, by modifying the orders giving “all consequential benefits”, passed by the Learned State Administrative Tribunal, upheld by the Division Bench of this Court, were modified to “notional benefits” by the 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 43 - Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ashwani Kumar [Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019, decided on 22.07.2019] and more-so, this principle stands reinforced in the case of Surajmani [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, arising from SLP (C) 23016 of 2023, decided on 06.02.2025]; and thirdly, the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Ashwani Kumar and Surajmani (supra), mandating to limit the relief to “notional benefits” cannot be permitted to be tinkered with in any eventuality; and fourthly, grant of “all consequential benefits” or “restricted benefits” shall amount to giving leverage or premium to those daily wagers who were not regularly appointed or were appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India i.e. without there being a sanctioned post, without advertising post, without inviting applications from the eligible candidates and without determining comparative merit of all the eligible candidates in- accordance with the Constitutional Scheme. Financial incentives i.e. “all consequential benefits” or “restricted benefits” cannot be extended to those daily wagers 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 44 - who were regularly appointed and not to those daily wagers who were appointed dehors the established ethos of public employment, by back door method. Right to “all consequential benefits or restricted benefits” can only accrue to a daily wager who was initially appointed as per the Constitutional Scheme, which stands approved in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 01} and reaffirmed in the case of Surajmani (supra) also; and fifthly, mere filing of a petition(s) or pendency of petition, before State Administrative Tribunal or this Court for work charge status by daily wager, who was not regularly appointed as per the established ethos of public appointment or was appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme will not have any legally enforceable right for “all consequential benefits” or “restricted benefits” as the case may be ; and lastly, since some daily wagers were extended the benefits of work charge status with “all consequential benefits or restricted benefits”, by the State Authorities, despite the fact that such daily wagers were not 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 45 - regularly appointed or were appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme and in order to carve out parity and to obviate the charge of discrimination inter-se the daily wagers, seeking work charge status, 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 inconsonance 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 Janak Dev Sharma [supra]. 15(iv). In instant writ petition, the Respondents -Employees have not placed any material on record to establish that they was regularly appointed or was appointed on daily wages inconsonance with the Constitutional Scheme as discussed above. In 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 46 - the absence of any material on record, to establish “that the appointment of the Respondents-Employees- Original Applicants was as per the Constitutional Scheme; therefore, this Court, has no hesitation to hold that the Respondents-Employees herein, shall be entitled for work charge status from date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service whereas 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 cases of Ashwani Kumar [supra], which stands reinforced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Surajmani [supra]. SUBSEQUENT EVENTS DURING PENDENCY OF INSTANT PROCEEDINGS: 16. Notably, though the State Administrative Tribunal passed an order on 09.07.2019, Impugned Order herein, {in OA No 1077 of 2017} directing the State Authorities to grant regularization to the Respondents-Employees herein on completion of 8 years of daily wage service and the State Authorities had assailed the order passed by Learned Tribunal in the Instant writ petition {in CWP No 2281 of 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 47 - 2020} but instead of granting regularization from due date but once the Petitioners-State Authorities took a decision on 07.01.2020, {Annexure P-4, at Page 165 of paper-book} which was further endorsed by the Engineer-in-Chief on 16.01.2020 [Annexure R-3 with Reply-Affidavit, at page 196 of paper book], deciding to grant the work charge status to Class-III daily wagers who have completed 8 years of continuous daily service upto 31.05.2006, from the date they complete 8 years of continuous daily wage service and thereafter the Respondents-Employees were also granted work charge status by issuing necessary orders in the month of February-March 2020, {Annexure R-4, colly, at pages 192 to 230 of paper book} from due date of completion of 8 years of daily waged service {between the period from 1.1.2001 to 1.1.2004} in terms of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Mool Raj Upadhyaya, Gehar Singh, Rakesh Kumar, Ashwani Kumar (supra). Once the benefit of work charge status and resultant higher pay fixation was extended/granted to the Respondents-Employees from the same date 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 48 - from which the benefit of regularization was granted by virtue of the Impugned Orders passed by Learned Tribunal to the Respondents-Employees herein, but and the State Authorities abruptly issued an order on 02.06.2021 {Annexure P-VI}, in withdrawing or annulling the work charge status and higher pay fixation granted/extended to the Respondents -Employees and that too without complying with the principles of natural justice ; and by acting contrary to the undertaking furnished by the State Authorities on affidavit dated 31.10.2018 in OA 1077 of 2017 regarding the admissibility and entitlement of work charge status to Class-III category of daily wagers from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service upto 31.05.2006 ; and by acting arbitrarily, so as to defeat the intent and object of the Scheme of Betterment framed by the State Authorities for daily wagers of all departments, who had rendered prolonged service in the peculiar and adversial geographical and topographical conditions in the State, by granting them higher pay incentives, in time scale of pay as was admissible to the 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 49 - corresponding category of employees and it was upon grant of this incentive that such daily wagers were termed as work charge employees; and even for conferment of work status to daily wagers in the State of Himachal Pradesh, there was neither any pre-requirement of a work charge establishment nor was the availability of a post necessary and that being so, the abolition of work charge establishment or abolition or conversion of posts, if any, would have any impact on conferment of such status with higher pay incentives; and adversarial order issued on 02.06.2021 {Annexure P-VI}, could neither negate or annul or withdraw the accrued benefits, which were approved by the mandate of law also. Passing of the above adversarial order was brought to the notice of this Court on 22.10.2021 and this Court restrained the State Authorities from withdrawing the work charge status or to affect recoveries from the Respondents-Employees herein. Post the grant of stay, the State Authorities amended the present writ petition, and placed on record the orders dated 02.06.2021, as Annexure P-VI, by inserting the 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 50 - averments in Amended Writ Petition that Respondents -Employees are not entitled for work charged status and since these benefits were inadvertently extended. However, after the passing of adversarial order on 2.06.2021, the larger issue regarding the entitlement of daily wagers for conferment of work charge status {irrespective of the category being Class-III/IV and/or the department} throughout the State of Himachal Pradesh remained the subject matter of controversy before this Court in case of Surajmani {LPA No 165 of 2021}, and these petitions were allowed by placing reliance on the law in the cases of Mool Raj Upadhayaya, Gehar Singh, Gauri Dutt, Rakesh Kumar and Ashwani Kumar (supra). Feeling aggrieved against the judgement passed by this Court, in LPA No 165 of 2021 and other connected matters, the State Authorities assailed the judgement in SLP and the judgement in the case of Surajmani (supra) was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh versus Surajmani and other connected matters in [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025 and other connected matters, decided on 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 51 - 06.02.2025], by reiterating and reinforcing the earlier mandate of law in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya, Rakesh Kumar and Ashwani Kumar (supra), entitling the daily wagers for work charge status with notional benefits only, by declaring the judgement in the case of Surajmani (supra) to be a judgement in rem. 16(i). In above backdrop, the material on record indicates that Learned Tribunal passed an order on 09.07.2019, {in OA No 1077 of 2017 referred to as Impugned Order}, granting regularization to the Respondents-Employees herein, on completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service and this order was assailed by the State Authorities-Petitioners in the instant Writ Petition(s) {in CWP No 2281 of 2020} during the pendency of Instant Writ Petitions, the State Authorities, based on the law existing at relevant time, granted the work charged status with higher pay fixation in February-March 2020, Annexure R-4, colly, from the date of completion of 8 years of daily waged service from 1.1.2002 to 1.1.1.2004 herein] i.e. same date from which Learned Tribunal granted relief of regularization on date of completion 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 52 - of 8 years of daily waged service to the Respondents- Employees herein. 16(ii). In these circumstances, the material on record establish that the directions passed by the Learned Tribunal on 09.07.2019, in Impugned Order regarding grant of regularization to the Respondents- Employees, stood eclipsed, became inappropriate and impossible of being implemented in the present form, as twin benefits could not be granted an incumbent and that too from same date in view of change in facts and change in law, as declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by a judgement in rem, on 06.02.2025, in the case of Surajmani (supra); entitling all daily wagers, including the Respondents- Employees herein, for work charged status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service therefore, in view of the subsequent events, on facts as well as the declaration of law in Surajmani (supra), this Court moulds the relief, by entitling the Respondents-Employees as Class-III, and other similar incumbents for work charged status from the date of completion of 8 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 53 - years of continuous daily waged service, with higher pay fixation benefits from due date, though notionally, as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Surajmani and in Janak Dev Sharma (supra), being judgment(s) in rem. The moulding of relief by granting/restoring work charge status in lieu of regularization will certainly shorten litigation and will avoid multiplicity of litigation and will also enable complete justice between the parties herein. Moreover, upholding the right and entitlement for work charge status will not prejudice the State Authorities in any manner, in view of the judgement in rem, which the State Authorities are bound to implement, by granting work charge status to all daily wagers, including the Respondents-Employees as Class-III. Moreover, the State Authorities through Principal Secretary (Finance) issued a communication on 27.06.2025 {Taken on record} addressed to all Secretaries to accord work charged status notionally to all daily wagers from the due date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service in terms of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 54 - Court in the case of Surajmani (supra). The State Authorities have also furnished the Instructions dated 19.07.2025 {Taken on record} to Learned Advocate General, which has been made available for perusal of this Court, stating that the Petitioners-State Authorities in the instant matter, do not intend to pursue the instant petition, assailing Impugned order passed by Learned Tribunal and also by agreeing in principle to grant benefit of work charged status to the Respondents-Employees herein, from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service i.e. from the same date from which the Learned State Administrative Tribunal had passed the Impugned order directing to grant regularization to the Respondents-Employees herein. The principles and preconditions for moulding of relief, which have been outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pasupuleti Venkateshwarlu v. The Motor & General Traders (1975) 1 SCC 770, Para 4}; and in Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram {1992 Supp (2) SCC 623 ; and in Nidhi versus Ram Kripal Sharma (D) Civil Appeal No 1008 of 2017, decided on 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 55 - 07.02.2017; and in Shivanna and Others versus B S Puttamadiah, (dead through LRs} in 2023 SCC Online SC 1969, and in J Ganapatha and others versus M/s N Selvarajalou Chetty Trust, in Civil Appeal No 4370 of 2025 {arising from SLP © No 827 of 2017}, fully apply to the facts of in instant cases. Based on subsequent events, as narrated above, this Court moulds the relief, entitling the Respondents-Employees herein and all other similarly placed incumbents {Class-III} entitled for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wages service, in the applicable time scale as is admissible to corresponding category, from date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service, with pay fixation from the due date notionally, so as to give effect to the declaration of law, in case of Surajmani, (supra) which is a judgement in rem, so as to render equitable and complete justice and also to shorten the present litigation and also to avoid multiplicity of litigation. In these circumstances, the adversial foundational 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 56 - order dated 02.06.2021, Annexure P-VI annexed in Amended Writ Petition, which tends to withdraw, annul, negate, take away or denies the benefit of work charged status and higher pay fixation {granted or due} is hereby, declared inoperative, ineffective for all intends and purposes, being contrary to and inconsistent with the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment in rem, in cases of Surajmani (supra) and Janak Dev Sharma (supra). Accordingly, the adversial order dated 2.06.2021 is set-aside and also held to be inapplicable to the Respondents-Employees herein and other similarly placed incumbents, so as to obviate any prejudice- disadvantage. ISSUE REGARDING RECOVERIES, IF ANY: 17. Once the State Authorities have already granted work charge status and pay fixation to some of the Respondents-Employees from the date of completion of 8 years of daily wage service as Class-III and also higher pay fixation in terms of decision of State Government taken on 07.01.2020 and on 16.01.2020 but benefits were withdrawn 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 57 - on 02.06.2021 [Annexure R-6/T at page 241 of the paper book], resulting in withdrawal of work charge status as well as pay fixation leading to recovery. This coercive action qua withdrawal of work charge status and recovery was stayed by this Court on 22.10.2021, as referred to above. Since the issue regarding entitlement and conferment of work charged status has now attained finality after declaration of law, by a judgement in rem, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Surajmani [supra], entitling the daily wager, including the Respondents- Employees and other similar incumbents for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous service without resorting to any pick and choose, by limiting the relief to “notional basis”. However, in Para-11 of judgment in case of Surajmani [supra], the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave liberty to the State to take such steps as it may deem fit regarding the amounts paid in excess vis-à-vis the entitlement for notional benefits only. Accordingly, this Court, at this stage, leaves it open for the State Authorities, to examine the matter, 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 58 - hereinafter as it may deem fit, if so desires, in accordance with law. CONCLUSION: 18. In view of above discussion, the directions contained in the Impugned Order dated 09.07.2019, Annexure P-1, passed by Learned State Administrative Tribunal directing the State Authorities to grant the benefit of regularization on completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service, being not pressed, as per the Instructions dated 19.07.2025 {Taken on record} is rendered infructuous. However, due to subsequent events, as borne out from the material on record, this Court moulds the relief and accordingly, the Respondents -Employees herein are held for work charge status from date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service. Upon grant of work charge status, resultant relief shall be limited only to “notional benefits” instead of “restricted consequential benefits for three years prior to filing of Original Applications”, so as to bring the moulded relief, in tune with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 59 - in cases Ashwani Kumar (supra), which stands reinforced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Surajmani (supra), and recently reiterated in Janak Dev Sharma (supra). Based on the discussion made hereinabove, and the subsequent events, the adversial order dated 02.06.2021, Annexure P-VI, with the Amended Writ Petition, which tends to withdraw, annul, negate, take away or deny the benefit of work charged status and higher pay fixation {already granted to some and is due to others-Respondents-Employees herein} is hereby, declared inoperative, ineffective for all intends and purposes, being contrary to and also inconsistent with the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment in rem, in cases of Surajmani (supra) and Janak Dev Sharma (supra). Accordingly, the adversial order dated 2.06.2021 is set-aside and also held to be inapplicable to the Respondents-Employees herein and other similarly placed incumbents, so as to obviate any prejudice -disadvantage. 19. No other point was pressed/argued. 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 60 - DIRECTIONS: 20. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant writ petition(s) are disposed of, in following terms:- (i) Instant Writ Petitions: (i) CWP No. 2281 of 2020, In Re; The State of H.P. and another Versus All Himachal P.W.D.-I.P.H. & Contractual Workers Union and another; (ii) CWP No.2296 of 2020, In Re; State of H.P. and another Versus Rajinder Kumar and others; and (iii) CWP No. 2297 of 2020, In Re; The State of H.P. Versus Nand Lal and others, are rendered Infructuous, being not pressed in terms of the Instructions dated 19.07.2025; (ii) Impugned Order dated 09.07.2019 passed by Learned State Administrative Tribunal directing the State Authorities to grant regularization on completion of 8 years of daily waged service shall stand modified ; in view of subsequent events, including the Instructions dated 19.07.2025, by granting the work charge status, in terms of the judgement in case of Surajmani (supra); (iii) State Authorities are directed to grant/ restore the work charge status to the 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 61 - Respondents-Employees {116 members of Original Applicant Union} as Class-III, from the date of completion of 8 years continuous daily wage service in terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Surajmani and Janak Dev Sharma (supra) ; (iv) Petitioners-State Authorities are mandated to grant/restore the work charge status to the Respondents-Employees herein, in Lead Case and other connected cases ; from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service as Class-III, with higher pay fixation from due date, in applicable time scale-pay scale “notionally, but without any past arrears; (v) The adversial order dated 02.06.2021, Annexure P-VI, in Amended Writ Petition which negates, takes away, withdraws, annuls the work charge status {granted or otherwise due} is set-aside; being contrary to and inconsistent with the law in the cases of Surajmani (supra) and in Janak Dev Sharma (supra) ; (vi) Recoveries of arrears be not recovered, from incumbents, upon grant of work charge status, till the State Authorities take a decision, qua excess payment, if any, in the light of the mandate in 2025:HHC:31480 REPORTABLE - 62 - Para 11 of the judgement, in the case of Surajmani (supra); (vii) State Authorities are directed to comply with directions contained herein, within six weeks from the receipt of certified / downloaded copy of this judgment; (viii) Parties to bear their respective costs. In aforesaid terms, all these petitions and all pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall stand disposed of, accordingly. (G.S. Sandhawalia) (Ranjan Sharma) Chief Justice Judge July 21, 2025 (Bharadwaj/TM)