JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, Judge Petitioner, Ramender Singh, a daily waged peon, who had initially filed CWP No. 4091 of 2012, which was transferred to Learned State Administrative Tribunal and has now been transferred to this Court as CWPOA No. 798 of 2019, has prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) that the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to give/allow work charge status to the petitioner on completing his 8 years of his continuous service w.e.f. 01.01.2003. (ii). That the respondents may be directed to pay all the consequential benefits/arrears to the petitioner in a time bound manner alongwith prevailing rate of interest from time to time. FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that petitioner was appointed as a peon in Forest Range Office at Sarahan, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmour under Forest Division Rajgarh, District Sirmour on 01.10.1991 on daily wage basis. His services were discontinued in the month of September, 1994 against which he filed Original Application No. 3281 of 1994 wherein directions were issued to reengage the petitioner at the same place or in the vicinity where job was available and accordingly, the petitioner was re-engaged on the basis of the orders dated 23.12.1994 [Annexure P-1]. It is averred that after re-engagement the petitioner had rendered continuous service but his services were regularized by the respondent-department as Peon on 18.09.2007. In this background, the claim of the petitioner is for grant of work charge status from the date he completed 8 years of continuous service with 240 days commencing from 01.10.1991 w.e.f. 01.01.2003 with all consequential benefits. STAND OF RESPONDENTS IN REPLY-AFFIDAVIT: 3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the State Authorities filed Reply-Affidavit dated 27.07.2012 of Conservator of Forests, Nahan Circle, Nahan, H.P. Perusal of Reply-Affidavit indicates that though the petitioner was engaged in 01.10.1991 but the petitioner did not complete 240 days from 1991 till 1994. Respondents have placed on record the Mandays Chart Annexure R-1 indicating that petitioner had rendered 240 days w.e.f. 1995 till his regularization on 18.09.2007. 3(i). Respondents have admitted in Para-1 of Reply-Affidavit, that the petitioner had rendered continuous service from 1995 to 2002 and has completed 8 years of continuous service. Respondents have placed on record the Mandays Chart Annexure R-1 indicating that petitioner had rendered 240 days w.e.f. 1995 till his regularization on 18.09.2007. 3(i). Respondents have admitted in Para-1 of Reply-Affidavit, that the petitioner had rendered continuous service from 1995 to 2002 and has completed 8 years of continuous service. It is averred in Para 6 of Reply-Affidavit that once the petitioner stands regularized on 18.09.2007 therefore, the claim for work charge status upon completion of 8 years of continuous service is also not tenable with these averments prayer was made for dismissing the writ petition. REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER: 4. Petitioner chose not to file any rebuttal to the averments contained in Reply-Affidavit. 5. Heard Mr. Varun Thakur, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Learned Deputy Advocate General for the Respondents-State. ANALYSIS: 6. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the material on record, the claim of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status on the basis of continuous service from 01.10.1991 w.e.f. 01.01.2003 has merit for the following reasons: 6(i). So far as the claim of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status from the date he completes 8 years of continuous service as inPara 8 and Para 11(i) of the writ petition, a perusal of the Mandays Chart [Annexure R-1], and averments in the Reply-Affidavit admits in unambiguous terms that the petitioner had rendered continuous service of 240 days in each calander year from 1995 till 2007. 6(ii). The issue as to whether the daily wagers of all Government departments are entitled for work charge status on completion of 8 years of continuous service stands adjudicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors versus Ashwani Kumar [Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019, decided on 22.07.2019] and reinforced in Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh & Others versus Surajmani & Anr. along with connected matters, decided on 06.02.2025 , in the following terms: 5. The workers who had been regularized in service in the Public Health Department under various schemes announced by the State Government from time to time but had not been granted the status of “work- charged” had approached the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 titled as Rakesh Kumar and Ors. Vs. The workers who had been regularized in service in the Public Health Department under various schemes announced by the State Government from time to time but had not been granted the status of “work- charged” had approached the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 titled as Rakesh Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. which came to be disposed of on 28.07.2010 by opining as under: “6. The simple question is whether the delay defeats justice? In analyzing the above issue, it has to be borne in mind that the petitioners are only class- IV workers (Beldars). The schemes announced by the Government clearly provided that the department concerned should consider the workmen concerned for bringing them on the work charged category. So, there is an obligation cast on the department to consider the cases of the daily waged workmen for conferment of the work-charged status, being on a work-charged establishment, on completion of the required number of years in terms of the policy. At the best, the petitioners can only be denied the interest on the eligible benefits and not the benefits as such, which accrued on them as per the policy and under which policy, the department was bound to confer the status, subject to the workmen satisfying the required conditions. 7. In the above circumstances, these Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case(s) of the petitioners herein for conferment of work charged status, subject to their eligibility in terms of the policy dated 3.4.2000 and as explained in 6.5.2000 policy, as extracted above. Needful in this regard shall be done within a period of three months from the date of production of the copy of this judgment by the respective petitioners. Needless to say that the question of conferment of work charged status does not arise in case the establishment ceases to be a work charged establishment and hence, the conferment of the status will not arise after the abolition of the work-charged status of the establishment.” 6. The aforesaid order came to be affirmed by this Court in Special leave Petition (Civil) No. 33570 of 2010 and all connected matters were disposed of on 15.01.2015. The aforesaid order came to be affirmed by this Court in Special leave Petition (Civil) No. 33570 of 2010 and all connected matters were disposed of on 15.01.2015. Later, certain workers who had been engaged on daily wage basis in Public Works Department of Himachal Pradesh, after having completed eight years of continuous service prayed for conferment of work-charged status by filing O.A. No. 412 of 2016 before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. Their prayer was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.06.2016. Upon challenging the same by the State in Civil Writ Petition No. 3111 of 2016 titled as State of H.P. and Ors. Vs. Sh. Ashwani Kumar the High Court, relying upon its judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 4489 of 2009 titled as Ravi Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Ors., decided on 14.12.2009, maintained the order of the Tribunal. The order of the High Court in Ashwani Kumar (Supra) has also been affirmed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019 titled as State of H.P. and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar by order dated 22.07.2019, wherein this Court observed as under: “3. We are not disturbing the finding of the Tribunal, which was affirmed by the High Court, with respect to the conferral of the status of the work charge from 01.01.2003. However, as regularization has been made only in the year 2006, obviously, notional benefit could have to be granted as the petition was initially filed in the year 2013. 4. Thus, we make the modification that the respondent would be entitled only for notional benefits of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly, with the aforesaid modification in the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court, the appeal is disposed of.” 7. In this factual scenario, when we consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, it would not detain us for too long to brush aside the contention of the learned senior counsel and learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Himachal Pradesh. Inasmuch as the issue involved in these appeals has been laid to rest by this Court in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (Supra). Inasmuch as the issue involved in these appeals has been laid to rest by this Court in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (Supra). That apart, this Court, while examining a similar plea in Ashwani Kumar’s (Supra) case in Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019 disposed of on 22.07.2019, has specifically addressed this issue by arriving at a conclusion that the order of the Tribunal directing conferment of ‘work charge status’ on completion of eight (08) years of service, did not suffer from any infirmity and it was reiterated order of the Tribunal was just and proper. 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. 9. It would not be out of context to refer at this juncture itself that the State, in its wisdom, having felt that the subsequent schemes having been formulated and implemented, would alter the situation and, therefore, order dated 12.04.1994 passed in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s (Supra) case has to be modified, had approached this Court by filing an Interlocutory Application being IA No. 3 in the year 2005 in the aforesaid Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case, i.e., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 787 of 1987. A perusal of the said application and the averments made thereunder would clearly indicate that the very same contentions urged, pleas advanced and arguments put forth today before us were the ones which were urged/raised in the said application. Though Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned senior counsel appearing for the State would fairly submit that the said application was withdrawn on the ground of subsequent schemes having been formulated and implemented by the State of Himachal Pradesh, but we are unable to accept the said proposition howsoever attractive it may be, for the simple reason that the said application was dismissed simpliciter as withdrawn. Yet another factor which sways our mind to reject the contention raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the State would be the fact that the State having accepted the judgment of Ashwani Kumar (Supra), has implemented the same and it is in this background, the High Court in the impugned order has observed that the State cannot adopt pick and choose policy. 10. For the cumulative reasons afore stated, we are of the considered view that the dicta laid down by this Court vide order dated 22.07.2019 in Ashwani Kumar’s (Supra) case which is based on the judgment of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (Supra) holds the field and would also be applicable to the Respondents herein who had approached the Tribunal or the High Court seeking similar relief. As such, the Respondents shall be entitled for grant of ‘work- charged’ status from the date of completion of 8 years of service. However, we hold that the relief in the present appeals will be limited to notional benefits as explained in paragraph 3 and 4 of Ashwani Kumar’s (Supra) case in Civil Appeal No(s). 5753 of 2019 and the present appeals stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. 11. We also make it explicitly clear that the State in its endeavour of implementing the orders of the Tribunal, High Court or this Court, if having paid the amounts in excess, would be at liberty to take such steps as it deems fit without insisting for one time recovery. 12. It is further underscored that this judgment would necessarily be a judgment in rem and the State shall hence forth not take recourse to employing personnel as daily wagers but shall make appointments only in accordance with law, as enumerated in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ]. 6(iii). Once the daily wagers are held entitled for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar and Surajmani [supra] therefore, in facts of the instant case, based on the Mandays Chart [Annexure R-I] and Reply-Affidavit the petitioner having rendered 8 years of continuous service with 240 days service from 1995 till 2002 is entitled for work charged status from 01.01.2003. Consequent upon the entitlement of the petitioner for work charge status from 01.01.2003 in terms of the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar and Surajmani [supra] the resultant issue as to whether the petitioner is entitled for all consequential reliefs-benefits or limited reliefs-benefits stands finally adjudicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar and Surajmani [supra] mandating that the benefits accruing grant of work charge status shall be limited to “notional benefits”. 6(iv). Learned State Counsel contends that the State Authorities shall grant work charge status from the date of completition of 8 years of continuous daily waged service but without any other added benefit like annual increments etc., as the relief(s) have been limited to “notional benefits” only. 6(iv). Learned State Counsel contends that the State Authorities shall grant work charge status from the date of completition of 8 years of continuous daily waged service but without any other added benefit like annual increments etc., as the relief(s) have been limited to “notional benefits” only. The above plea of Learned Counsel cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny, for the reason that firstly, the entitlement of “notional benefits” means that though all benefits, which would have accrued in normal course will entail except for monetary benefits or past arrears; and secondly, denial of annual increments and pay fixation under the pretext of national benefits shall amount to obliterating the work charge service altogether; and thirdly the denial of annual increments and pay fixation cannot be resorted to without giving prior notice, without giving a prior hearing and that too arbitrarily; and fourthly, the annual increments cannot be denied when, the work and conduct was satisfactory and nothing adverse existed or was conveyed to the petitioner during the period of work-charge service [01.01.2003 to 18.09.2007]; and fifthly, incremental benefits cannot be denied in violation of Fundamental Rules 24; and sixthly, the negation or withholding or denial of annual increments imposing penalty the petitioner by giving a go-bye to the CCS [CCA] Rules as applicable in instant case; and seventhly, withholding of annual increments and pay fixation upon grant of work charge, amounts to defeating the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ashwani Kumar and Surajmani [supra] and the entitlement for “notional benefits” and renders the legal entitlements nugatory or otiose; and eighthly, the denial of service benefits, including annual increments and pay fixation under the garb of “notional benefits” amounts to negating the very concept of notional benefits; and ninthly the right and entitlement of the petitioner for “notional benefits” cannot be construed by State Authorities to mean “no benefits”, which is highly unreasonable and cannot be permitted. In these circumstances, the concept of “notional benefits” means that an employee shall be entitled for all service benefits which would have accrued to him, in the normal course, but without any past arrears. In these circumstances, the concept of “notional benefits” means that an employee shall be entitled for all service benefits which would have accrued to him, in the normal course, but without any past arrears. Based on the concept of “notional benefits”, the petitioner shall be held entitlement for appointment-grant of work charge status and pay fixation in applicable pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2003 and the resultant annual increment(s) due and payable w.e.f. 01.01.2004 every year till regularization on 18.09.2007; with the benefit of revised pay fixation from date of regularization till the petitioner remained in service of the Respondents. DIRECTIONS: 7. In view of above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms: (i). Petitioner is held entitled for work charge status from date of completion of 8 years of continuous service w.e.f. 01.01.2003 based on daily waged service rendered from 1995 till 2002 [as in Annexure R-I], in terms of the judgement in the case of Surajmani [supra]; (ii). State Authorities are directed to grant work charge status to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2003 and accrual annual interests w.e.f. 01.01.2004 with pay fixation till regularization [18.09.2007] and thereafter during service as rendered from time to time in the light of the judgement, in the case of Surajmani [supra]; notionally but without past arrears; (iii). State Authorities shall comply with the directions [in Paras (i) & (ii) above] within six weeks from today; (iv). Parties to bear respective costs. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition alongwith all pending miscellaneous application(s), shall stand disposed of accordingly.