JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, Judge Petitioners, Jayanti Rathore and five others initially filed an Original Application No 566 of 2017 before Learned State Administrative Tribunal and upon abolition of the Tribunal, the matter came to be transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No 3103 of 2020, seeking the following reliefs:- “That the respondents may be ordered to given entire arrears to the applicants from the dates they have been given work charge status till their services were regularized.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Grievance is that petitioners were engaged as Beldar in the Irrigation and Public Health Division No-II, Shimla (now Jal Shakti Vibhag) w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and their services were regularized in the month of December 2006. They were granted work charge status retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.2004 [in case of petitioners 1 and 2] and w.e.f. 01.01.2005 [in case of petitioners 3 to 6], but the consequential benefits, including the past arrears of pay and allowances have not been released to them from due date [01.01.2004/01.01.2005] when, past arrears have been given to others which is discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT: 3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 08.11.2017, the State Authorities filed the Reply- Affidavit dated 23.10.2020 of Superintending Engineer Jal Shakti Circle, Kasumpti, Shimla. 3(i). Reply-Affidavit states that State Government had taken a decision on 23.07.2015 [Annexure R-1], not to give any arrears to those persons who were granted work charge status being non petitioners or who had not filed any case before a judicial forum. It is averred that the pay of the petitioners has been refixed from the due date of grant of work charge status but the claim of the petitioners for past arrears has been opposed on the ground, that the petitioners have not filed any petition in a judicial forum and being non-petitioners, they were not entitled for past arrears. In this backdrop, a prayer has been made for dismissing the writ petition. NO REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER: 4. Petitioners have not filed any rejoinder to rebut the stand taken by the State Authorities in Reply-Affidavit. 5. Heard, Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate, with by Mr. Bonit, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Navlesh Verma, Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents-State. ANALYSIS: 6. NO REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER: 4. Petitioners have not filed any rejoinder to rebut the stand taken by the State Authorities in Reply-Affidavit. 5. Heard, Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate, with by Mr. Bonit, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Navlesh Verma, Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents-State. ANALYSIS: 6. 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 work charge status [already stands granted] is affirmed and the claim for release of notional pay fixation benefits from the date of conferment of work charge status [already stands granted] whereas the claim of the petitioners for past arrears accruing from the date of grant of work charge status is declined, for the following reasons:- ENTITLEMENT OF DAILY WAGERS FOR WORK CHARGE STATUS WITH NOTIONAL BENEFITS AFFIRMED: 6(i). Issue as to whether daily wagers, upon conferment of work charge status are to be given consequential benefits and to what extent stands answered by the Honble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Ashwani Kumar , decided on 10.05.2018 [Civil Appeal No 5753 of 2019 decided on 22.07.2019] and reinforced in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Surajmani and others along with other connected matters in [Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, decided on 06.02.2025], entitling the daily wagers for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service but the consequential relief(s) were limited to “notional benefits”, in the following terms:- “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. 10. 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) in Civil Appeal No(s) 5753 of 2019 and the present appeals stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. 6(ii). While dealing with a similar matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No (s). 11170 of 2024, State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vs. Janak Dev Sharma, decided on 26.05.2025, mandated that the judgment in the case of Surajmani (supra),is a judgment in rem and the directions contained in the case of Surajmani (supra)would apply mutatis mutandis in all cases having same facts, in following terms:- “5. It is experienced that despite passing the judgment in Surajmani (supra) which is in rem, but in view of the separate orders passed by the High Court, several special leave petitions are being filed by the State. Considering the same, it is to be expressed that in our view, when a judgment in rem has been passed, it would apply mutatis mutandis in all cases having similar facts and filing separate special leave petitions is in futility. The State may take note of this fact and do the needful.” In above backdrop, the entitlement of the petitioners for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service {which stands granted to the petitioners w.e.f. 0.01.2004 and 01.01.2005 respectively} but by limiting the reliefs to “notional benefits” is affirmed. However, it is made clear that the term “notional benefits” shall certainly entitle the petitioners for fixation of pay in the applicable pay scale from date of grant of work charge status with benefit of annual increment(s) till regularization and benefit of such higher fixation till retirement notionally but without past arrears. CLAIM FOR PAST ARREARS-IMPERMISSIBLE: 6(iii). However, it is made clear that the term “notional benefits” shall certainly entitle the petitioners for fixation of pay in the applicable pay scale from date of grant of work charge status with benefit of annual increment(s) till regularization and benefit of such higher fixation till retirement notionally but without past arrears. CLAIM FOR PAST ARREARS-IMPERMISSIBLE: 6(iii). Learned Counsel for the petitioners states that upon grant of work charge status, once the State Authorities have granted entire past arrears or arrears for three years preceding filing of petition to other incumbents therefore, the petitioners may be granted same benefits. CLAIM FOR PAST ARREARS-IMPERMISSIBLE: 6(iii). Learned Counsel for the petitioners states that upon grant of work charge status, once the State Authorities have granted entire past arrears or arrears for three years preceding filing of petition to other incumbents therefore, the petitioners may be granted same benefits. The above contention of Learned Counsel for the petitioners for releasing him entire past arrears or restricted arrears for three years preceding filing of the petition is devoid of any merit, for the reason, firstly, in terms of the judgement in the case of Surajmani (supra), incumbents who were “not regularly appointed” and were not appointed in accordance with the ethos of the Constitutional Scheme in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, upon grant of work charged status were held entitled to limited relief of “notional benefits”; and secondly, the mandate of giving "notional benefits" implies to grant the benefit of pay fixation in the applicable pay scale with annual increments from due date; and thirdly, principle of notional benefits, "encompasses presumptive benefits, but without any past arrears"; and fourthly, since the judgement in the case of Surajmani (supra) is a judgment-in-rem, which had approved grant of work charge status with "notional benefits" then, in such an eventuality, past arrears (wholly or in part) can neither be claimed nor granted to the petitioner contrary to and dehors the mandate of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra);and fifthly, the claim or grant of past arrears shallamount to negating and acting in disregarding of the mandate of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra), which is impermissible; and sixthly, even the plea of the petitioner that upon grant of work charge status once past arrears (wholly or in part) has been released to others then, the petitioner may be granted/extended same benefits is wholly misconceived, for the reason, that in order to ensure parity and to avoid the charge of discrimination amongst work charged employees whereby, the past arrears were granted to some so as to ensure the implementation of the directions passed by the Tribunal or High Court or Honble Supreme Court, without noticing that these work charge employees were not regularly appointed and their appointment was not made in accordance with the ethos of the Constitutional Scheme of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, even the past arrears so released were termed as “excess amount(s), which was liable to be recoverable”, by the Honble Supreme Court in case of Surajmani, (supra) in the following terms:- “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 ata 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. 11. 11. We also make it explicitly clear that the State in its endeavor 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.” CLAIM FOR PAST ARREARS ECLIPSED DUE TO RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION OF JUDGMENT IN SURAJMANI 6(iv). Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the judgement of the Honble Supreme Court cannot apply retrospectively, when others were given past arrears (wholly or in part) by the Respondents. The above contention is misconceived in view of the fact that the law declared by the Honble Supreme Court is retrospective, unless the judgement is declared to apply prospectively. The above principles finds force in the mandate of the Honble Supreme Court in Kanishk Sinha & another versus The State of West Bengal and others, SLP (Cr) Nos 8609-8714 of 2024, 2025 INSC 278 , that the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is inherently retrospective unless the judgment expressly states that the same shall operate prospectively, in following terms:- “Now the law of prospective and retrospective operation is absolutely clear. Whereas a law made by the legislature is always prospective in nature unless it has been specifically stated in the statute itself about its retrospective operation, the reverse is true for the law which is laid down by a Constitutional Court, or law as it is interpretated by the Court. The judgment of the Court will always be retrospective in nature unless the judgment itself specifically states that the judgment will operate prospectively. The prospective operation of a judgment is normally done to avoid any unnecessary burden to persons or to avoid undue hardships to those who had bonafidely done something with the understanding of the law as it existed at the relevant point of time. The prospective operation of a judgment is normally done to avoid any unnecessary burden to persons or to avoid undue hardships to those who had bonafidely done something with the understanding of the law as it existed at the relevant point of time. Further, it is done not to unsettle something which has long been settled, as that would cause injustice to many.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court has mandated in case of Surajmani (supra)that the “employees who were not regularly appointed cannot be granted extra benefits”,{i.e. past arrears, upon grant of work charge status}so as to burden the state exchequer and in case such benefits have been released so as to implement the orders passed by the Tribunal or High Court or Supreme Court then also, the “extra amount” so released to employees upon grant of work charge status whose appointment was not regular was termed as “excess amount”, which was “liable to be recovered” by the State Authorities. Pertinently, upon grant of work charged status some employees were given the entire past arrears whereas the others were given restricted arrears for three years due to Court orders. This anomalous situation was removed and uniformity was reinforced by mandating that upon grant of work charge status, relief shall be limited to “notional benefits” and if “extra benefits” {past arrears, wholly or in part) stood released to any employee, then also, such extra benefits were termed as “excess amount”, which were “liable to be recovered” from its employees who were not regularly appointed or were appointed by giving a complete go bye to the constitutional scheme of public appointment in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. By virtue of the declaration of law,by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra), upon grant of work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of daily waged service once the relief was limited to “notional benefits” and the claim as well as the right of work charged employees for “extra benefits” i.e. for past arrears,{entire past arrears or restricted arrears for three years preceding filing of petition} stood eclipsed and was rendered inoperative by declaration of law had retrospective effect. Factual matrix establishes that the initial appointment of the petitioner(s) on daily wage basis and even work charge appointment was not regular and the same was made without complying with the ethos of public employment enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India i.e. without issuing advertisement defining eligibility, without calling applications from eligible candidates, without determining comparative merit and without resorting to selection of most meritorious-suitable incumbent for the job. Nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner(s) to assert and establish that they were appointed after due compliance of above parameters. Non-compliance of constitutional parameters establishes that the appointment of the petitioners was not regular but was made dehors the core principles of public employment and was backdoor appointment. The petitioners have neither any locus nor any right for past arrears [wholly or in part] as given to others when, the “extra benefits” or inadmissible benefits of “past arrears released to others”, who were not regularly appointed or were appointed in contravention of principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India was termed as “excess amount”, and same was “liable to be recovered” by the State Authorities, in terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Surajmani (supra), reiterated in case of Janak Dev Sharma(supra). Parity can only be claimed and accorded inter-se incumbents who were regularly appointed, in accordance with the foundational principles of constitutional scheme of public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Since nothing has been placed on record by the petitioners to assert and establish that they were regularly appointed, in consonance with the core requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In these circumstances, the claim for parity with others, who were not regularly appointed and were not appointed as per the ethos of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India coupled with the fact that the once the law declared by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra) mandates that the employees “who were not regularly appointed” were entitled to “notional benefits” and in case, any “extra benefits or past arrears” stood released, yet, same was “liable to be recovered” by carving out uniformity amongst its employees. Parity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution does not cover “negative parity”, so as to perpetuate illegality and thus, the claim of the petitioners for parity for past arrears qua those who have been disentitled for these benefits in terms of the law declared by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra) cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioners for past arrears is misconceived and the same cannot be granted dehors the mandate of in the case of Surajmani (supra). 7. No other point was raised/argued. DIRECTIONS: 8. In view of above discussion, and for the reasons recorded herein above, the instant petition is disposed of, in following terms:- (i). Claim of petitioners for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wages service [stand already given to petitioners 1 & 2 w.e.f. 01.01.2004 and to petitioners 3 to 6 w.e.f. 01.01.2005] is affirmed; being in consonance with the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Surajmani (supra); (ii) State Authorities shall extend the relief of “notional benefits” to the petitioners from the date of grant of work charge status [if not already granted] with annual increments till regularization with ‘notional benefits”, but without any past arrears; (iii). Claim of the petitioners for past arrears [wholly or in part] upon grant of work charge status is declined in terms of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surajmani (supra) which recognizes “notional benefits”; (iv). Parties to bear respective costs. In the aforesaid terms, the instant petition along with pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.