2025:HHC:45116 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No.1852 of 2020 Decided on: 18.11.2025 __________________________________________________________ Sher Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?. For the petitioner: Mr. Jaidev Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Ranjan Sharma, Judge Petitioner, Sher Singh, initially filed an Original Application No.1488 of 2017, before Learned State Administrative Tribunal, and upon abolition of Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No.1852 of 2020, seeking the following reliefs :- “(i). That the respondents may kindly be directed to condone the shortage of few days in the year 1984, 1985, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1994 & 2004 for the purpose of continuity in service and seniority of the father of the applicant in view of the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Mohd. Abdul Kadir and another vs. Director General of Police, Assam and others, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 611 as 2025:HHC:45116 - 2 - well as order dated 14.12.2009 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No.4489 of 2009 titled as Ravi Kumar versus State of H.P. & others (Annexure A-2). (ii). That the respondents may very kindly be directed to regularize the service of the father of the applicant from the year 1994 i.e. on completion of 10 years service as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s v. State of H.P. with all consequential benefits such as; arrears of pay, pay fixation, seniority and service benefits due to deceased father of the applicant etc.” 2. At the very outset, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on Instructions, states that petitioner does not press the claim for condoning the period of short-fall/artificial breaks which were given during the daily waged service to the petitioner’s father, Late Sh. Tulsi Ram, who died on 19.07.2008 [Annexure R-I] as in Prayer Clause 7(i) as extracted but restricts the claim for granting the work charge status/regularization [as the case may be] posthumously to his Late father Shri Tulsi Ram, from due date and also to give the benefit of family pension and other service benefits. FACTUAL MATRIX: 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that his father late Sh. Tulsi Ram was appointed as Forest 2025:HHC:45116 - 3 - Worker in 1984 in Forest Beat Chanon, Range Tirthen, Seraj under Forest Division Banjar, District Kullu, (H.P). Petitioner, being the son of Late Sh. Tulsi Ram has set up a case that artificial and fictional breaks given to his deceased father, namely Tulsi Ram, during the years 1984, 1985, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1994 and 2004 [as in Mandays Chart Annexure VI] and these breaks may be condoned and the break period may be counted towards actual 240 days of continuous service. Based on the Statement made by Learned Counsel for the petitioner, [as in Para 2, supra since this claim in Para 7(i) of the petition is not pressed], therefore, this Court does not deal with this issue herein. However, the other claim for grant of work charged-status regularization from the date of completion of 10 years of daily wage service to the petitioner’s father as per mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya versus State of Himachal Pradesh, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316, and now due to subsequent events and affirmation of right for work charge status from date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service as per the mandate 2025:HHC:45116 - 4 - of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Ashwani Kumar, CWP No.3111 of 2019, decided on 10.05.2018 and 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] to the petitioner’s Late father Sh. Tulsi Ram with relief for family pension to eligible family members is asserted with consequential benefits. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT: 4. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 27.04.2017, the State Authorities have filed the Reply- Affidavit dated 19.08.2017, of Conservator of Forests, Kullu, Forest Circle Kullu. 4(i). In Reply-Affidavit, the State Authorities have taken an objection regarding the maintainability of instant petition. Respondents have stated that as per Mandays Chart [Annexure R-VI], the petitioner’s father did not complete 240 days service during the years 1984, 1985, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1994 and 2004. However, the fact that Late Sh. Tulsi Ram had served 2025:HHC:45116 - 5 - the department continuously from 1995 till March 2008 is not disputed by the State-Authorities. Reply-Affidavit further indicates that after death of the petitioners father, namely, Late Sh. Tulsi Ram the petitioner was given employment as Peon [Class-IV], on daily wage basis on 05.12.2013 [Annexure R-2] and the petitioner joined as such on 04.01.2014 [Annexure R-3]. 4(ii). So far as the claim for grant of work charge status to the petitioner’s father, Late Sh. Tulsi Ram is concerned, the State Authorities in Para 7 of the Reply-Affidavit have stated that Forest Department does not have a work charge establishment and therefore, the work charged status was not granted to the petitioner’s father. In this background a prayer is made for dismissing the writ petition. REBUTTAL-REJOINDER BY THE PETITIONER: 5. Petitioner filed a rejoinder, reiterating the averments made in the writ petition, claiming conferment of work charge status for his deceased father Late Sh. Tulsi Ram from the date of completion of 10 years or 8 years of daily waged service with 240 days service rendered in each calendar year 2025:HHC:45116 - 6 - from 1995 till 31.12.2002 but despite his entitlement for work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2002 his father, Late Sh. Tulsi Ram was made to continue on daily wage basis till his death on 19.07.2008 [Annexure R-I]. Non-grant of work charge status was attributable to the Respondents and therefore, the petitioner’s father may be granted work charge status posthumously, with benefit of such service for admissible retiral benefits including family pension to the eligible dependents. 6. Heard, Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sumit Sharma, Learned Deputy 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 claim of the petitioner for conferring the work charge status to his Late father Sh. Tulsi Ram, though posthumously needs to be looked into by the State Authorities, for the following reasons: 7(i). Admittedly, petitioner’s father Late Sh. Tulsi 2025:HHC:45116 - 7 - Ram had rendered 8 years of continuous service from 1995 till 31.12.2002, which is clear from the Mandays Chart, Annexure VI, but the State Authorities kept the petitioner’s father on daily wages till his death on 19.07.2008 [Annexure R-I], despite the fact that the petitioner’s father Late Sh. Tulsi Ram became entitled for work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2003 from the date he completed 8 years of continuous daily wage service, in terms of the judgment of this Court in Rakesh Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters, CWP No.2735 of 2010, decided on 28.07.2010 and in State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Ashwani Kumar, CWP No.3111 of 2019 decided on 10.05.2018 which was upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Versus Ashwani Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019, decided on 22.07.2019, entitling the daily wagers of all departments for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reinforced the entitlement of daily wagers of all departments, including 2025:HHC:45116 - 8 - forest department for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Surajmani and others alongwith connected cases [Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, decided on 06.02.2025]. 7(ii). Even, Division Bench of this Court, in State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Pritam Chand, LPA No. 82 of 2025, decided on 27.08.2025, State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Layak Ram, LPA No. 100 of 2025, decided on 27.08.2025 and State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Gita Ram Sharma, LPA No. 231 of 2025, decided on 27.08.2025 has reiterated the entitlement of daily wagers of Forest Department for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service; with the further findings that for conferment of work charge status there is neither the requirement of work charge establishment nor abolition of work charge establishment or conversion of work charge posts into regular posts shall not have any effect on the entitlement of daily wagers for 2025:HHC:45116 - 9 - work charge status. Entitlement and right for work charge status which had accrued in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Surajmani (supra) can neither be kept in abeyance nor negated, restricted, curtailed or denied, when, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra) has approved the entitlement of all daily wagers for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged/service by limiting relief to “notional benefits” but without any past arrears. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner’s father, Late Sh. Tulsi Ram for work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2003, posthumously, with notional pay fixation benefits from 01.01.2003 till death on 18.07.2008, [Annexure R-I] and for regularization, in case any junior to the petitioner’s father namely Late Sh. Tulsi Ram was regularized prior to his death on 19.07.2008 needs to be examined by the State Authorities. In addition, upon death of petitioners’ Late father Sh. Tulsi Ram on 19.07.2008, the claim for family pension w.e.f 19.07.2008 to “eligible family members” as per the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 also 2025:HHC:45116 - 10 - needs to be examined by the State Authorities. 8. Faced with the above peculiar fact-situation, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall be satisfied, in case, the State Authorities examine the claim for grant of work charge status to the petitioner’s father Late Sh. Tulsi Ram w.e.f. 01.01.2003 and claim for regularization, in case any junior(s) was regularized prior to his death on 19.07.2008 and to examine the claim for grant of family pension to the eligible family members for deemed service rendered from 01.01.2013 till 19.07.2008 and for other retiral benefits, on a representation to be made by the petitioner to Respondent No.2-Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla for ventilating the grievances hereinafter. 9. Per contra, Learned State Counsel states that in case the petitioner makes a representation asserting claim for grant of work charge status from date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage services as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra) and for eligible benefits, including family pension 2025:HHC:45116 - 11 - to the eligible members, the same shall be looked into/examined by the State Authorities. 10. Learned State Counsel raises an objection regarding the maintainability of the petition. The above contention is misconceived, for the reason, that once the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar and Surajmani (supra) mandates the State Authorities to grant work charge status to daily wagers from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service and the petitioner’s father Late Shri Tulsi Ram has rendered more than 8 years of continuous daily waged service as per the Mandays Chart, [Annexure R-VI] from 1995 to 2002 and he became eligible and entitled for work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2003 with pay fixation benefits till his death on 19.07.2008. After his death on 19.07.2008, the case of the eligible family members [including the petitioner and others, subject to eligibility] for family pension based on deemed service rendered in temporary capacity [deemed work charge w.e.f. 01.01.2003 till death on 19.07.2008] needs to be examined, in the light of Rule 54(2) (a) and 2025:HHC:45116 - 12 - explanation thereto read with Rule 54(14) of the CCS (Pension) Rules from due date i.e. date of death of petitioner’s father on 19.07.2008 and as revised w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and thereafter. Since the right to sue accrues on the petitioner, after the declaration of law in the case of Rakesh Kumar, Ashwani Kumar and Surajmani (supra), which encompasses the claim for family pension to the petitioner and/or other family members therefore, the present petition is maintainable and the objection of Learned State Counsel is over-ruled, in fact-situation of instant case. DIRECTIONS: 10. In view of above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present petition is disposed of, in the following terms: “(i) As prayed, the Petitioner shall make a representation to Respondent No.2- Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, asserting a claim for grant of work charge status to his father Late Sh. Tulsi Ram posthumously w.e.f. 01.01.2003 i.e. the date of completion of 8 years continuous daily waged service; in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case of Surajmani (supra), within two months from today; (ii) Upon making of representation, the State Authorities shall examine the claim 2025:HHC:45116 - 13 - for work charge status and for regularization; (iii). Upon grant of work charge status and/or regularization, the petitioner’s father shall be granted “notional benefits” from due date [01.01.2003] till death on 19.07.2008 but without past arrears; (iv). State Authorities shall examine the claim for family pension w.e.f. 19.07.2008 to eligible family members, including petitioner in accordance with law; and thereafter to release the admissible benefits, if any; (v) Entire exercise shall be completed within three months from today; (vi) Parties to bear respective costs. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition is disposed of alongwith all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 18th November, 2025 [himani]