2025:HHC:43455-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA Nos. 66 & 135 of 2016 Reserved on: 04.12.2025 Decided on: 12.12.2025 ____________________________________________________ __ 1. LPA No. 66 of 2016 State of HP and another ...Appellants Versus Dalip Chand and others ...Respondents ________________________________________________________ 2. LPA No. 135 of 2016 State of HP and another ...Appellants Versus Tara Chand and others ...Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the appellants: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General, in both the appeals. For the respondents: Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, in both the appeals for respondent No. 1. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeals is against the common judgment dated 20.06.2015, passed in CWP No. 137 of 2012 along with CWP No. 138 of 2012, titled Dalip Chand versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others and Tara Chand vs. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:43455-DB State of Himachal Pradesh and others, respectively, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby writ petitions preferred by the writ petitioner(s)/ respondent No. 1 herein (in both the appeals) (for short ‘writ-petitioner(s)’), have been allowed directing the appellants-State to pay the arrears of wages due to them, within a period of six weeks. 2. The appellants-State have challenged the common judgment on the grounds that there was no privity of contract between the writ petitioner(s) and the appellants-State. During July, 2006, the Government took a decision to handover some water supply schemes to the panchayats for its maintenance and the appellants-State had only provided the financial assistance to the gram panchayats on specified criteria. The Department had no direct link with the workers and the scheme was closed. So far as the reliance having been placed by the learned Single Judge on Annexure PD is concerned, this document has not been proved and thus the learned Single Judge has wrongly come to the conclusion that the writ petitioner(s) were discharging their duties with the appellants-State, who were lawfully engaged for regulating the water supply scheme nomenclatured as ‘WSS Taksal’. 3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel representing the writ petitioner(s) has supported the judgment passed 3 2025:HHC:43455-DB by the learned Single Judge and submitted that the appellants-State, despite receipt of the legal notice, did not bother to reply the same. From the documents placed on record, it is crystal clear that the writ petitioner(s) were engaged as per the memorandum of understanding, wherein it was clearly mentioned that the Gram Panchayat shall be responsible for operation of water supply scheme. It was argued that the order passed by the learned Single Judge, directing the appellants- State to pay the amount w.e.f. 22.06.2009 till the filing of the petition does not warrant any interference. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 5. As per the pleadings in the writ petition(s), the writ petitioner(s) were appointed as water distributors/water supply men by the appellants-State, through respondents No. 2 & 3, the Gram Panchayat Taksal who were respondents No. 3 and 4 in the writ petition. The appellants-State had asked respondents No.2 and 3 in the appeal to provide them the capable persons for discharging duties/functions of water distribution and the Gram Panchayat had passed the resolution also, appointing the writ petitioner(s) for distribution of water since 22.06.2009. The memorandum of understanding was also signed by respondent No.3 with the writ 4 2025:HHC:43455-DB petitioner(s), which was sent to appellant No.2, as required by them. The writ petitioner(s) had also got issued the legal notice through their counsel to pay the arrears of wages w.e.f. 22.06.2009, however, no reply was given to the said notice. They had also raised the demand through demand application dated 29.04.2010, which was addressed to the Labour Inspector, Parwanoo, requesting him to get the arrears of wages released in favour of writ petitioner(s). 6. The learned Senior counsel representing the writ petitioner(s) also referred to Annexure PD i.e. the register maintained by the writ petitioner(s), which was countersigned by the official of the appellants-State and submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference. It is not in dispute that the petitioners/workmen have worked and discharged their duties, but the only plea which has been taken by the appellants-State is that the Government took a decision in July, 2006, to handover some water supply schemes agreed to by the Pradhan of the panchayats for its maintenance to their exclusive jurisdiction and the appellants-State would only provide financial assistance to the said Gram Panchayat on a specific criteria for which the concerned Assistant Engineer will first sign a memorandum of understanding with the said Gram Panchayat for its transfer and thereafter, the said Gram Panchayat will 5 2025:HHC:43455-DB engage workers. 7. The appellants-State has though tried to convince this Court that so far as Annexure PD, which has been placed on record, is concerned, it cannot be presumed that the same was checked by their employees. However, it cannot be ignored that once the State Government had taken a policy decision to transfer the water supply schemes to the Gram Panchayat, which was being operated by it, the said scheme had been operated by the writ petitioner(s) and since they have not been paid the wages, the writ Court had rightly allowed their claim, directing the appellants-State to pay the arrears of wages to them. Once in reply, the appellants-State has admitted that after signing of MOU with the panchayat, it is the sole responsibility of the said Gram Panchayat for its maintenance and only the financial assistance will be provided by it to the said Gram Panchayats, the appellants-State are under obligation to pay the wages to the writ petitioner(s). 8. Appellants-State being a model employer cannot deny the release of wages to the writ petitioner(s), once it is evident from the documents placed on record that they have discharged their duties. A perusal of the writ record shows that the respondents No. 3 and 4 have not chosen to file reply and further the only claim put forth by 6 2025:HHC:43455-DB the appellants-State is the resolution of Gram Panchayat dated 04.07.2010, issued on 28.09.2010, requesting for appointment of workers was never accepted nor proper procedure was followed to engage workers in the scheme. Once the writ petitioner(s) have worked and discharged their duties as evident from Annexure PD placed on record, which cannot be prepared in one day, the appellants- State cannot avoid its liability to pay the wages to the writ petitioner(s). The stand of the State in the written statement in context of the pleadings is that the respondent department had to provide financial assistance to the Gram Panchayat on specified criteria for which the concerned Assistant Engineer had to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the Gram Panchayat. The Resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 04.07.2010 and issued on 28.09.2010 had not been accepted as the procedure was not there. The same had been dispensed with in September, 2007. Thus, there is an admission as such that the engagement was only by the private respondent and there is no denial that the work was not done by them. 9. Perusal of Annexure P-7, the information taken would go on to show that the Executive Engineer has also stated that two workers were appointed at their own level for the distribution of the water and matter was not taken up with the department for their 7 2025:HHC:43455-DB appointment and no Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the department at that point of time. In such circumstances, once the writ petitioner(s) had worked as such, it would not lie in the mouth of the State to deny wages to the petitioner(s) for the period they had worked as such. 10. The learned Single Judge has only considered the claim put forth by the writ petitioner(s) to pay the arrears of wages to them w.e.f. 22.06.2009 till the institution of the petition on 05.01.2012, which direction does not suffer from any infirmity. 11. Thus, we are of the considered view that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality and infirmity. Resultantly, the Letters Patent Appeals being devoid of any merit are dismissed. However, no order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) Chief Justice Judge 12 th December, 2025 (Anurag)