JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, Judge Petitioner, Baldev Singh, initially filed Original Application No.6448 of 2017 before the State Administrative Tribunal and upon abolition of Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No.3316 of 2020, seeking the following reliefs :- “(i). That the respondents be directed to regularize the service of the applicant after 8 years service w.e.f. 01.01.2003 with all consequential benefits i.e. arrear of pay, seniority and pension etc. (ii). The respondents be directed to grant interest @ 12% per annum from due dates from all monetary benefits to which the applicant is entitled.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as daily wage Supervisor in Development Block Paragpur, District Kangra, on 01.01.1995 and his services were regularized on 22.09.2007 [Annexure P-2] where he joined on 11.10.2007. 2(i). By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for granting him the regularization or work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous service w.e.f. 01.01.2003, in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in Rakesh Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others , CWP No.2735 of 2010, decided on 28.07.2010. It is averred that the benefit of work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of service has been given to one Sh. Kuldeep Kumar, as per [Annexure A-6] and to Santosh Kumar [as mention in Paras 6 and 7 of the petition]. 2(ii). In this background, a prayer is made for granting regularization/work charge status [though stated to be a claim for regularization in prayer clause inPara 7(i)] with the prayer for releasing all consequential benefits like pay fixation, seniority, pension etc along with interest. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT: 3. Pursuant to issuance of notice on 21.12.2017, the State Authorities have filed Reply-Affidavit dated 31.08.2018, of Joint Secretary (RD) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 3(i). Reply-Affidavit admits that the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wage Supervisor in Development Block Paragpur on 01.01.1995 and he had completed 8 years of service as on 01.01.2003 but, since no regularization policy was issued from May, 2002 to 09.06.2006, therefore, the petitioner was regularized after issuance of policy dated 09.06.2006 by the respondents w.e.f. 22.09.2007 prospectively. 3(i). Reply-Affidavit admits that the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wage Supervisor in Development Block Paragpur on 01.01.1995 and he had completed 8 years of service as on 01.01.2003 but, since no regularization policy was issued from May, 2002 to 09.06.2006, therefore, the petitioner was regularized after issuance of policy dated 09.06.2006 by the respondents w.e.f. 22.09.2007 prospectively. In Para 6 of the Reply-Affidavit, respondents have stated that the Rural Development Department does not have a work charge establishment and, therefore, the petitioner could not be granted the work charge status by relying upon Para 7 of the judgment in the case of Rakesh Kumar (supra) which stated thatwork charge status is not to be given after establishment ceases to be work charge establishment. 3(ii). So far as the claim of the petitioner for parity with Santosh Kumar is concerned, Reply-Affidavit stated that the aforesaid Santosh Kumar had filed a writ petition and pursuant to the setting aside of his termination, the benefit of regularization from the due date was given to him. Reply-Affidavit further states that the petitioner was regularized after issuance of policy dated 09.06.2006 prospectively, in terms of the conditions in the policy. In this background, prayer was made for dismissing the writ petition. REBUTTAL-REJOINDER BY THE PETITIONER: 4. Petitioner has filed a rejoinder, reiterating the averments in the writ petition and has claimed work charge status from the date of completion of8 years of continuous service, with all consequential benefits. STATEMENT MADE BY LEARNED COUNSEL: 5. During the pendency of the writ petition, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Director Rural Development Department has issuedan office order on 23.01.2021 [Taken on Record] whereby, petitioner-Baldev Singh has been granted the work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of daily wage service w.e.f. 31.01.2003 [Statement Taken on Record]. 5(i). Pursuant to issuance of order dated 23.01.2021, Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that though the work charge status has been granted to the petitioner from 31.01.2003, but the resultant consequential relief(s) i.e. benefit of annual increments, pay fixation, arrears from due date of work charge status and for counting of work charge service towards regular service for pension has not been granted to the petitioner as yet. 6. Heard, Mr. D.K. Khanna, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Navlesh Verma, Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents-State. ANALYSIS: 7. 6. Heard, Mr. D.K. Khanna, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Navlesh Verma, Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents-State. ANALYSIS: 7. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the material on record, this Court is of the considered view, that the claim of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status and benefit of annual increments towards pay fixation and for counting work charge status with regular service for pensionary benefits has force whereas the claim for past arrears from date of grant of work charge status is declined; for the following reasons :- CLAIM FOR WORK CHARGE STATUS AFFIRMED: 7(i). So far as claim of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous service stands adjudicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Ashwani Kumar , CWP No.3111 of 2019, decided on 10.05.2018 which was upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Versus Ashwani Kumar, decided on 22.07.2019] [Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019, and in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Surajmani and other along with other connected matters. [Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, decided on 06.02.2025] entitling the daily wagers for work charge status from the date they completed 8 years of continuous service. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The State of H.P. & Ors. versus Janak Dev Sharma, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No (s) 11170 of 2024, decided on 26.05.2025] has mandated that the benefit of the judgment in case of Surajmani (supra) shall be granted to all person who are similarly placed. Based on the mandate of law in the case of Ashwani Kumar, Surajmani and Janak Dev Sharma (supra), the petitioner being entitled for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous service w.e.f. 31.01.2003 now stands accorded by the respondents to the petitioner in terms of the order dated 23.01.2021 referred to above, is upheld. UPON GRANT OF WORK CHARGE STATUS RELIEF LIMITED TO NOTIONAL BENEFITS: 7(ii). UPON GRANT OF WORK CHARGE STATUS RELIEF LIMITED TO NOTIONAL BENEFITS: 7(ii). Consequent upon the grant of work charge status to the petitioner from 31.1.2003, the petitioner shall be entitled for consequential relief of “notional benefits” i.e. fixation of pay in regular time scale as admissible to regular employees [w.e.f. 31.1.2003] from date of grant of work charge status and the annual increments from due date of completion of one year of said service till regularization on 22.09.2007 [Annexure P-2] and re-fixation thereafter during service. Consequent upon grant of work charge status w.e.f 31.01.2003 as per the orders dated 23.01.2021 [passed during pendency of instant case], the State Authorities have not granted the “notional benefits” i.e. benefit of fixation of pay in time scale from date of grant of work charge status and annual increments from date of completion of one year service till regularization and thereafter to the petitioner as yet denied of these benefits flowing from the mandate of law in case of Ashwani Kumar, Surajmani and Jai Dev Sharma (supra). 7(iii). Faced with this situation, Learned State counsel contends that the grant of “notional benefits” does not contemplates grant of pay fixation and incremental benefits and pay fixation and therefore, the petitioner has no claim. The above contention of Learned State Counsel that “notional benefits” does not imply grant of above benefits is misconceived, perverse and cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. NOTIONAL BENEFITS IMPLY PAY FIXATION FROM DUE DATE OF GRANT OF WORK CHARGE WITH ANNUAL INCREMENTS TILL REGULARIZATION AND THEREAFTER: 7(iii-a) Learned State Counsel contends that the State Authorities shall grant work charge status from the date of completion 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 notional 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 [03.01.2003 to 10.07.2007]; 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. 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. 03.01.2003 and the resultant annual increment(s) due and payable w.e.f. 01.01.2004 every year till regularization on 10.10.2007; with the benefit of revised pay fixation from date of regularization till the petitioner remained in service of the Respondents. 7(iv) Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that after grant of work charge status from 03.01.2003 to 10.10.2007, the work and conduct of the petitioner was not up to the mark. Depriving the petitioner of annual increments which accrue from date of completion of one year’s service and each completed year thereafter is punitive which cannot be permitted to operate. Accordingly, the petitioner is held entitled for pay fixation in the applicable pay- time scale from the date of grant of work charge status and annual increments from the date he served as work charge status from 03.01.2003 till regularization on 10.10.2007 and re-fixation of pay during service or till retirement. PAST ARREARS RENDERED INOPERATIVE AND ECLIPSED DUE TO RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION OF JUDGMENT IN SURAJMANI: 7 (v). Once the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra) has mandate that upon conferment of work charged status, the relief shall be "limited to notional benefits" and excess amount given as past arrears (wholly or in part) so as to implement the orders of the Tribunal, High Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court and "release of the past arrears was treated as excess amount(s) and was liable to be recovered". Even the declaration of law by the Honble Supreme Court in case of Surajmani (supra) has retrospective operation as per the mandate of the Honble Supreme Court in Kanishk Sinha & another versus The State of West Bengal and others, 2025 Live Law (SC) 259, SLP (Cr) Nos 8609-8714 of 2024, 2025 INSC 278 , decidedon 27.02.2025, by eclipsing and rendering the claim as well as the right for past arrears inadmissible. In above backdrop, this Court has no hesitation to hold, that once initial appointment of the petitioner was not regular and was made dehors the ethos of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and was backdoor appointment; therefore, no past arrears, [wholly or in part] were admissible to him, when, even the excess amount released to other employees, so as to implement the orders passed by the Tribunal/Court(s) was liable to be recovered, SO as to ensure parity between one homogenous class of daily wagers who were granted work charge status as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Surajmani (supra). Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner for past arrears [entire arrears or restricted arrears for 03 years] cannot be granted dehors the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surajmani (supra), which provides for notional benefits only and the arrears granted to others, upon grant of work charge status in order to implement the orders and directions passed by the Tribunal/Courts was treated as excess amount [inadmissible amount] was directed to be recovered in installments and therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted benefits. BENEFIT OF WORK CHARGE SERVICE FOR PENSIONARY BENEFITS: 7(vi). Now coming to the claim of the petitioner for counting the work charge status with regular service till retirement, for the purposes of pension is no longer res integra, in view of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Sukru Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others , CWP No.6167 of 2017, decided on 06.03.2018, which stands upheld in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 32680 of 2018, titled as The State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Sukru Ram and another , decided on 23.05.2015 and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Matwar Singh and Another CWP No.2384 of 2018, decided on 18.12.2018, which was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the opening Para of the judgment in Sunder Singh versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors along with connected matters, Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018, approving to count work charge service followed by regular service for pensionary benefits Learned State Counsel is not in a position to show anything to the contrary that the benefit of work charge status is not counted towards regular service for pensionary benefits in aforesaid judgments. The State Authority cannot single out the petitioner by depriving him of the benefit of work charge service to be counted for pensionary and other retiral benefits towards regular service for pensionary and other retiral benefits so as to grant revised w.e.f. 01.10.2018 till day. Accordingly, the petitioner is held entitled for counting of work charge service for the period from 31.01.2003 to 10.10.2007 followed by regular service, from date of joining as regular employee on the basis of the regularization orders dated 22.09.2007 [Annexure P-2] on 11.10.2007 till retirement on 30.09.2018 [during the pendency of instant petition] for pensionary benefits. DIRECTIONS: 8. Accordingly, the petitioner is held entitled for counting of work charge service for the period from 31.01.2003 to 10.10.2007 followed by regular service, from date of joining as regular employee on the basis of the regularization orders dated 22.09.2007 [Annexure P-2] on 11.10.2007 till retirement on 30.09.2018 [during the pendency of instant petition] for pensionary benefits. DIRECTIONS: 8. In view of above discussion and for the reasons recorded herein above, the instant petition is allowed in the following terms:- (i). Grant of work charge status from date of completion of 8 years of continuous service from 31.01.2003 [given during pendency of instant petition on 23.01.2021], is upheld; (ii). Upon grant of work charge status from date of completion of 8 years service, the petitioner is held entitled for fixation of pay from date of grant of work charge status in applicable scale and incumbency from 31.01.2003 till regularization on 11.10.2007 and thereafter for resultant pay fixation notionally in terms of the judgment in the case of Surajmani (supra); (iii). Claim of petitioner for past arrears from date of grant of work charge status is declined, as the mandate of law in Ashwani Kumar, Surajmani, Janak Dev Sharma (supra) enables only “notional basis”; (iv). State Authorities shall count work charge service [rendered from 31.01.2003 to 10.10.2007] with regular service from [from 11.10.2007 till superannuation on 30.09.2018] as per the judgments in the case of Shukru Ram, Matwar Singh and Sunder Singh (supra), with all consequential benefits; (v). State Authorities shall revise the retiral benefits after counting work charge service with regular service for retiral benefits of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.10.2018; (vi). State Authorities shall comply with the directions on or before 31.01.2026, failing which the petitioner shall liable for interest @ 6% per annum; (vii). Parties to bear respective costs. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.