IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5285 of 2022 Date of Decision: 1.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Tara Chand and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioners herein are aggrieved of order dated 12.5.2017 (Annexure P-5), whereby representation having been filed by them in terms of order dated 16.12.2016, passed by the erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 6680 of 2016, titled Tara Chand and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., praying therein for grant of work charge status after their having completed eight years of daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year, came to be rejected on the ground that work charged establishment has ceased to exist, in the Department. 2. Admittedly, careful perusal of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties clearly reveal that petitioners were initially appointed as daily wage beldar in the IPH Department in - 2 - December 1996 and thereafter, their services were regularized in the year 2007. In the year 2016, petitioners filed OA No. 6680 of 2016 before the erstwhile Tribunal, praying therein for grant of work charge status and other consequential benefits in terms of judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. alongwith connected matters. Erstwhile Tribunal vide order dated 16.12.2016 directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in light of Rakesh Kumar (supra) but vide impugned order as detailed herein above, respondents proceeded to reject the case of the petitioners on the basis that work charged establishment has ceased to exist and as such prayer for grant of work charge status cannot be accepted. 3. It is not in dispute that Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3111 of 2016 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Ashwani Kumar, has held that work charged establishment is not pre-requisite for grant of work charge status, which is otherwise required to be given to daily wage employees after completion of eight years service on daily wage basis with 240 days in each calendar year. 4. Though aforesaid judgment passed in Ashwani Kumar’s case was laid challenge before the Hon’ble Apex Court, but same was not interfered with by the Hon’ble Apex Court, rather monetary benefits were restricted. Subsequent to passing of directions in Ashwani Kumar’s case, ultimately issue with regard to grant to work - 3 - charge status again came to be listed before this Court in bunch of petitions and finally, Division Bench of this Court vide judgment 12.1.2023, passed in LPA No. 165 of 2021, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Surajmani and Anr., upheld the finding given in Ashwani Kumar’s case and reiterated that daily wager who has worked for more than eight years with 240 days in each calendar year shall be entitled to conferment of work charge status. 5. Though respondent-State laid challenge to aforesaid judgment before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and others, but same was dismissed vide Judgment dated 06.02.2025 with direction to the respondents to grant work charge status to daily wagers, who have completed eight years daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year but with a rider that work charge status shall be granted on notional basis, meaning thereby, no monetary benefits qua the period of work charge shall be granted, but such period shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of pay fixation and continuity in service. 6. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 12.5.2017 is quashed and set-aside and respondents are directed to consider the case decide afresh in light of mandate contained in Surajmani’s case. Since petitioners are - 4 - fighting for their rightful claim for so many years, needful in terms of aforesaid, shall be done preferably within four weeks. December 1, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge