2025:HHC:40147 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5973 of 2024 Date of Decision: 17.11.2025 __________________________________________________________ Shri Roshan Lal …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “I. That the impugned orders dated 07.10.2016 (Annexure P-14) and order dated 14.08.2019 (Annexure P-16) passed by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside. II. That the Respondents may kindly be directed to grant work charge status to the Petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1994 and fixation of pay notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1994 and grant of arrears of salary w.e.f. 16.08.2001 i.e. on actual basis from the date of Award till date with interest throughout. Further, the respondents may kindly be directed to superannuate the Petitioner after attaining the age of 60 yeas as per the notification of the Government as the Petitioner has been granted work-charge status/regularisation before the year 2001.” 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that petitioner herein was initially engaged as daily wage Beldar in the year 1984 and in afore capacity, he worked till 1990, whereafter he allegedly abandoned the job, on account of his oral termination. On account of his oral termination, petitioner along with other similarly situate persons raised industrial dispute, which ultimately came to be referred to H.P. Labour 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:40147 2 Court, Shimla and was registered as Reference No.16 of 1997. Though in afore proceedings, respondents herein refuted the claim of the petitioner that he was initially engaged as as daily wage Beldar in the year 1984 and his services were disengaged in the year 1990, but Labour Court on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record passed Award dated 16.08.2001, thereby directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner along with other 21 workmen in service without back wages, but with seniority. 3. Pursuant to aforesaid Award passed by the Labour Court, petitioner was reinstated as daily wage Beldar w.e.f. 01.11.2001 and offered appointment on regular basis vide Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Division Nahan, Sirmaur, order dated 27.02.2003 prospectively, pursuant to which he joined on 25.05.2003. Subsequently, respondents having taken note of service rendered by the petitioner on daily wage basis ordered his regularisation w.e.f. 27.02.2003, but denied him wages for break period i.e. w.e.f. 1984 to 01.11.2001. 4. In nutshell, grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Nishant Khidtta, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that since in terms of Award dated 16.08.2001, which has attained finality, petitioner shall be deemed to have been in service on Daily Wage basis w.e.f. 1984, his services ought to have been regularised in the year 1994, after his having completed 10 years service on daily wage basis with 240 days in each calendar year, 2025:HHC:40147 3 but respondents wrongly granted him benefit of regularisation w.e.f. 2003 i.e. after completion of 19 years of daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year. 5. It is also claimed at the behest of petitioner that he is entitled to actual benefits w.e.f. date of Award i.e. 16.08.2001, but he has been given actual benefits w.e.f. 24.12.2009, as per law laid down in Jai Dev Gupta’s case. Besides above, it has also been claimed that since petitioner was engaged prior to 10.05.2001, he shall be deemed to have retired after his having attained the age of 60 years in terms of Notification dated 21.02.2018 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 6. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed reply, wherein rightful claim of the petitioner has been attempted to be refuted on the ground that vide Award dated 16.08.2001 passed by the Labour Court, petitioner was allowed only seniority but not wages for break period w.e.f. 1984 to 01.11.2001, hence he became eligible for work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.1997, but without any annual grant, till his rejoining. Though Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Division Nahan, has been already directed to grant petitioner work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.1997, but his pay has been refixed w.e.f. 01.11.2001 to 24.12.2009 on notional basis and w.e.f. 24.12.2009 till passing of order laid challenge in the instant proceedings on actual basis, as per law laid down in Jai Dev Gupta’s case. 2025:HHC:40147 4 7. Mr. Nishant Khidtta, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently argued that Award dated 16.08.2001, which has attained finality, has been misinterpreted by the respondents, because in terms of aforesaid Award, service rendered by the petitioner prior to his disengagement was required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority. If it is so, entire service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 1984 till his re-engagement on 01.11.2001 is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating total period of service rendered by the petitioner on daily wage basis with 240 days in each calendar year. He submitted that since petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1984 on daily wage basis and as per Award dated 16.08.2001, he was ordered to be reinstated with continued service, he shall be deemed to have been in service w.e.f. 1984 till his re- engagement on 01.11.2001, meaning thereby, petitioner ought to have been granted work charge status/regularisation in the year 1994, but definitely not in the year 2003, as has been done in the case of the petitioner. Mr. Khidtta, learned counsel representing the petitioner, submitted that though subsequently respondents rectified their mistake by passing order, thereby granting work charge status to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1997 while denying actual benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.11.2001, on the date he was ordered to be reinstated in terms of Award dated 16.08.2001 passed by the Labour Court. 2025:HHC:40147 5 8. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while justifying the action of the respondents in granting work charge status/regularisation to the petitioner w.e.f. 1997, vehemently argued that since petitioner never worked after year 1984, there is otherwise no occasion, if any, to grant him benefit w.e.f. afore year till his reinstatement on 01.11.2001. He submitted that though in the case at hand petitioner was offered reinstatement in terms of Award dated 16.08.2001 passed by the Labour Court, which was duly accepted by him and subsequently he was regularised in the year 2003, but at no point of time, objection, if any, was ever raised with regard to regularisation of the petitioner in 2003, instead of 1997, as has been claimed in the instant proceedings. He further submitted that otherwise also, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings after an inordinate delay of 21 years and as such, has been rightly held entitled to actual benefits w.e.f. 24.12.2009. 9. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner herein was engaged as daily wage Beldar in the year 1984 and in afore capacity, he worked till 1990 when his services along with other similarly situate persons were disengaged. Petitioner along with other similarly situate persons approached Labour Court by way of Reference No.16 of 1997, wherein respondents claimed that petitioner and other similarly situate persons themselves abandoned the job, but such plea of them 2025:HHC:40147 6 ultimately came to be rejected by the Labour Court on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties. Vide Award dated 16.08.2001, Labour Court while ordering reinstatement of the petitioner along with other 21 workmen held petitioner entitled for actual benefits from the date of Award, meaning thereby, petitioner was not held entitled to actual benefits w.e.f. 1984 till 01.11.2001. 10. As per Award dated 16.08.2001, which has attained finality, petitioner was granted full back seniority w.e.f. 1984 till his reinstatement w.e.f. 01.11.2001, but qua afore period, he was granted notional benefits, meaning thereby, no actual benefits were to be granted to the petitioner for the period, detailed hereinabove, but certainly aforesaid period was required to be taken into consideration for continuous service as well as fixation of pay, which in the instant case repeatedly came to be denied to the petitioner, as a result thereof, petitioner approached erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No.3334 of 2003, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 22.06.2004, directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in a time bound manner in terms of Mool Raj Upadhyay’s case. For the implementation of the same, petitioner was also compelled to file execution petition and ultimately again had to file a writ petition bearing CWP No.570 of 2013, which was transferred to the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal and was registered as TA No.2835 of 2015. 2025:HHC:40147 7 11. In compliance to the order passed by the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal on 05.05.2016 in TA No.2835 of 2015, respondents passed order dated 07.10.2016 (Annexure P-14), whereby Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Division Nahan, came to be directed by Engineer-in-Chief to grant work charge status to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1997 and refix his pay and grant him pay fixation benefit only w.e.f. 01.11.2001 to 23.12.2009 on notional basis and w.e.f. 24.12.2009 to the date of passing of order on actual basis, as per law laid down in Jai Dev Gupta’s case. In the afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein to set aside aforesaid order and issue direction to respondents to grant him work charge status w.e.f. 1994, when he had completed ten years of service from the date of his initial appointment in the year 1984. Besides above, it has also been claimed at the behest of petitioner that since w.e.f. 01.11.2001, he had been continuously working in the Department till his superannuation, he ought to have been granted actual benefits in terms of Award dated 16.08.2001 passed by the Labour Court. Admittedly, in the case at hand, vide Award dated 16.08.2001 passed by the Labour Court, petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service without back wages, but with full back seniority, meaning thereby, though service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 1984 till 01.11.2001 was to be taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority, but petitioner was not held entitled for actual benefits qua afore period. 2025:HHC:40147 8 12. In terms of Award dated 16.08.2001, though petitioner was reinstated in service w.e.f. 01.11.2001, but he subsequently came to be granted benefit of work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.1997, without any annual increment till his rejoining, whereas in terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyay’s case, petitioner ought to have been granted work charge status after completion of 10 years of continuous daily wage service. In the instant case, petitioner completed 10 years of continuous service on daily wage basis in the year 1994 and as such, he was entitled to work charge status w.e.f. 1994, whereas he was granted such benefit in the year 1997. Petitioner at this stage is aggrieved on account of non-fixation of his pay, taking note of service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 1984 till grant of work charge status, which in the case at hand has been done w.e.f. 1997. Since as per Award dated 16.08.2001, service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 1984 till his reinstatement i.e. 01.11.2001, was required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of continuity, petitioner is right in contending that aforesaid period is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of his pay fixation notionally w.e.f. 1984 till the date of Award and on actual benefits w.e.f. 01.11.2001 till his superannuation, however, in the instant case, respondents have granted him fixation benefit notionally w.e.f. 01.11.2001 to 23.12.2009 and w.e.f. 24.12.2009 till passing of order dated 07.10.2016 (Annexure P-14) on 2025:HHC:40147 9 actual basis, which is totally contrary to the Award passed by the Labour Court, which has attained finality. 13. Similarly this Court finds that in the instant case, petitioner was retired after his having attained the age of 58 years i.e. in the year 2024, whereas in terms of Notification dated 21.02.2018 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, petitioner, who, admittedly being a Class-IV employee, was engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and his services were regularised after 10.05.2001, ought to have been retired at the age of 60 years. If it is so, additional benefit of 2 years service is also required to be given to the petitioner. 14. Though Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that claim as put forth by the petitioner is barred by delay and laches, but was unable to dispute that petitioner remained embroiled in litigation for his rightful claim. Petitioner on account of his illegal disengagement, firstly approached Labour Court, which passed Award dated 16.08.2001 and thereafter petitioner was compelled to approach the H.P. Administrative Tribunal in the year 2003. Pursuant to order passed by the Tribunal in the year 2003, though petitioner filed representation, but again for execution of the order passed by the Tribunal, petitioner was compelled to file execution proceedings before the Tribunal. Despite there being specific directions issued in the execution proceedings, the petitioner was again compelled to file a writ petition bearing CWP No.570 of 2013, which was transferred 2025:HHC:40147 10 to the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal and the same was registered as TA No.2835 of 2015, which was decided on 05.05.2016. It took so long for respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner. Moreover, right of the petitioner which has accrued in his favour pursuant to Award passed by the competent Court of law i.e. Labour Court, vide order dated 16.08.2001 cannot be permitted to be defeated on the ground of limitation. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the Award dated 16.08.2001 passed by the Labour Court, respondents though granted benefit to the petitioner, but not from due date. Once claim, if any, arising in favour of the petitioner in terms of Award dated 16.08.2001 has been fairly acknowledged by the respondents and there is only misinterpretation of the same, plea of delay and laches, otherwise sought to be raised in the petition is not available to the respondents/State. 15. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly the same is allowed. Impugned orders dated 07.10.2016 (Annexure P-14) and 14.08.2019 (Annexure P- 16) are quashed and set aside, inasmuch as pay of the petitioner has been refixed w.e.f. 01.11.2001 to 23.12.2009 on notional basis and w.e.f. 24.12.2009 on actual basis. Respondents are directed to grant work charge status w.e.f. 1994 and re-fix the pay of the petitioner w.e.f. 1994 till 16.08.2001 on notional basis and thereafter on actual basis. Further, since petitioner was to retire on attaining the age of 60 years, instead of 2025:HHC:40147 11 58 years, benefit of two years of service be also granted to the petitioner. Since petitioner has been fighting for his rightful claim for years together, this Court hopes and trusts that needful in terms of instant judgment shall be done expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks. The present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 17, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)