Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3775 (HP)

Tilak Raj v. State of H. P.

2025-10-10

Ranjan Sharma

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. Petitioner, Tilak Raj, a Beldar (Class-IV) has come up before this Court seeking the following relief(s): (i). That the respondents may very kindly be directed to grant work charge status/regularization to the applicant as Beldar w.e.f. 04.03.2002 as per 8 years regularization policy framed by the State Government in the year 2000 as well as judgment delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No.2735/2010 tiled as Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. decided on 28.07.2010, with all consequential benefits such as; arrears of pay for 5 years, pay fixation and seniority etc.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially engaged as Beldar on daily wage basis w.e.f. 03.03.1994 in IPH Section Deothi Sub-Division No.1 in Rampur Circle, District Kinnaur. It is averred that the services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 13.02.2007. It is further averred that the petitioner completed 08 years of continuous service with 240 days and became eligible w.e.f. 04.03.2002 but the said benefit was not extended to him. 2(i). Learned counsel for the petitioner states that during the pendency of instant petition though the work charge status from the date of completion of 08 years of continuous service stands accorded to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2002 but his grievance in instant case is that though all other similarly placed daily wagers, who have been conferred the work charge status on completion of 08 years of service have been granted actual monetary and consequential benefits from the date of grant of work charge status but the petitioner has been singled out and denied the consequential-actual monetary benefits as given to others in terms of the judgment in CWP No.2735 of 2010, titled Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P., decided on 28.07.2010 [Annexure A-1]. In this background, the surviving claim of the petitioner is for granting him all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay from date of conferment of work charge status as granted to others. STAND OF THE STATE AUTHORITIES: 3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 31.03.2016, the Respondents No.1 to 4 have filed the reply-affidavit of Superintending Engineer, IPH Circle Reckong Peo, dated 15.06.2016. 3(i). STAND OF THE STATE AUTHORITIES: 3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 31.03.2016, the Respondents No.1 to 4 have filed the reply-affidavit of Superintending Engineer, IPH Circle Reckong Peo, dated 15.06.2016. 3(i). Perusal of the Reply-Affidavit indicates that the petitioner has been granted the work charge status from due date i.e. 01.01.2002 on completion 08 years of continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year and even pay of the petitioner has also been re-fixed w.e.f. 01.01.2002 in terms of the order dated 19.10.2015 [Annexure R-1] supra. It is averred that since, work charge status stands accorded to the petitioner from 01.01.2002 i.e. the date of completion of 08 years of continuous service, therefore, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of writ petition. REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER: 4. Petitioner filed a rejoinder and in Para 3 it is stated that consequent upon conferment of work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2002 in terms of order dated 19.10.2005 [Annexure R-1], though the Respondents were bound to grant actual monetary benefits-arrears, upon conferment of work charge status with all consequential benefits but aforesaid monetary benefits, including arrears have not been released as yet. In rejoinder, the petitioner has relied upon the mandate of this Court in LPA No. 165 of 2021, titled the State of H.P. & Others versus Surajmani & Another, decided on 12.01.2023 to assert that the admissible monetary benefits for three years prior to filing of petition deserves to be granted upon conferment of work charge status. 5. Heard, Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith, Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents and have gone through the material on record. 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 though the petitioner has been granted work charge status, in terms of the order dated 19.10.2015 [Annexure R-1]w.e.f. 01.01.2002 from the date of completion of 08 years of continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year and his pay has been fixed from the said day; but the claim of the petitioner for actual consequential benefits-monetary benefits is not tenable, for the following reasons: 6(i). The issue as to whether the daily wagers in the State of Himachal Pradesh were entitled for work charge status from the date of completion of 08 years of continuous service and whether such daily wagers were to be granted actual monetary benefits or notional benefits, is no longer res integra, in view the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh & Others versus Surajmani & Anr. along with connected matters, decided on 06.02.2025. AFFIRMATION OF ENTITLEMENT FOR WORK CHARGE STATUS FROM COMPLETION OF 8 YEARS OF CONTINUOUS DAILY WAGED SERVICE BUT RELIEF LIMITED TO NOTIONAL BENEFITS: 6(ii). Since the issue with respect to entitlement of daily wagers for conferment of work charge status to all daily wages [Class III and Class-IV categories] stands adjudicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Surajmani and other connected matters, decided on 06.02.2025 and the aforesaid judgment has also been mandated to be judgment in rem then, this Court as well as the State Authorities, including the petitioner is bound by the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Surajmani (supra), wherein, the entitlement for work charge status was affirmed but the benefits flowing from work charge status were limited to “notional benefits”. The operative part of the judgment in case of Surajmani (supra), reads as under: 5. The workers who had been regularized in service in the Public Health Department under various schemes announced by the State Government from time to time but had not been granted the status of “work- charged” had approached the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 titled as Rakesh Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. which came to be disposed of on 28.07.2010 by opining as under: “6. The simple question is whether the delay defeats justice? In analyzing the above issue, it has to be borne in mind that the petitioners are only class- IV workers (Beldars). The schemes announced by the Government clearly provided that the department concerned should consider the workmen concerned for bringing them on the work charged category. The simple question is whether the delay defeats justice? In analyzing the above issue, it has to be borne in mind that the petitioners are only class- IV workers (Beldars). The schemes announced by the Government clearly provided that the department concerned should consider the workmen concerned for bringing them on the work charged category. So, there is an obligation cast on the department to consider the cases of the daily waged workmen for conferment of the work-charged status, being on a work-charged establishment, on completion of the required number of years in terms of the policy. At the best, the petitioners can only be denied the interest on the eligible benefits and not the benefits as such, which accrued on them as per the policy and under which policy, the department was bound to confer the status, subject to the workmen satisfying the required conditions. 7. In the above circumstances, these Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case(s) of the petitioners herein for conferment of work charged status, subject to their eligibility in terms of the policy dated 3.4.2000 and as explained in 6.5.2000 policy, as extracted above. Needful in this regard shall be done within a period of three months from the date of production of the copy of this judgment by the respective petitioners. Needless to say that the question of conferment of work charged status does not arise in case the establishment ceases to be a work charged establishment and hence, the conferment of the status will not arise after the abolition of the work-charged status of the establishment.” 6. The aforesaid order came to be affirmed by this Court in Special leave Petition (Civil) No. 33570 of 2010 and all connected matters were disposed of on 15.01.2015. Later, certain workers who had been engaged on daily wage basis in Public Works Department of Himachal Pradesh, after having completed eight years of continuous service prayed for conferment of work-charged status by filing O.A. No. 412 of 2016 before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. Their prayer was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.06.2016. Upon challenging the same by the State in Civil Writ Petition No. 3111 of 2016 titled as State of H.P. and Ors. Vs. Sh. Ashwani Kumar the High Court, relying upon its judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 4489 of 2009 titled as Ravi Kumar Vs. Their prayer was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.06.2016. Upon challenging the same by the State in Civil Writ Petition No. 3111 of 2016 titled as State of H.P. and Ors. Vs. Sh. Ashwani Kumar the High Court, relying upon its judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 4489 of 2009 titled as Ravi Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Ors., decided on 14.12.2009, maintained the order of the Tribunal. The order of the High Court in Ashwani Kumar (Supra) has also been affirmed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019 titled as State of H.P. and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar by order dated 22.07.2019, wherein this Court observed as under: “3. We are not disturbing the finding of the Tribunal, which was affirmed by the High Court, with respect to the conferral of the status of the work charge from 01.01.2003. However, as regularization has been made only in the year 2006, obviously, notional benefit could have to be granted as the petition was initially filed in the year 2013. 4. Thus, we make the modification that the respondent would be entitled only for notional benefits of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly, with the aforesaid modification in the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court, the appeal is disposed of.” 7. In this factual scenario, when we consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, it would not detain us for too long to brush aside the contention of the learned senior counsel and learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Himachal Pradesh. Inasmuch as the issue involved in these appeals has been laid to rest by this Court in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (Supra). That apart, this Court, while examining a similar plea in Ashwani Kumar’s (Supra) case in Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019 disposed of on 22.07.2019, has specifically addressed this issue by arriving at a conclusion that the order of the Tribunal directing conferment of ‘work charge status’ on completion of eight (08) years of service, did not suffer from any infirmity and it was reiterated order of the Tribunal was just and proper. 8. 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. 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. 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) case in Civil Appeal No(s). 5753 of 2019 and the present appeals stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. 11. We also make it explicitly clear that the State in its endeavour 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. 12. It is further underscored that this judgment would necessarily be a judgment in rem and the State shall hence forth not take recourse to employing personnel as daily wagers but shall make appointments only in accordance with law, as enumerated in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ]. BASED ON MANDATE IN ASHWANI KUMAR AND SURAJMANI BENEFIT OF WORK CHARGE STATUS GRANTED BY LIMITING RELIEF TO NOTIONAL BENEFITS: 6(iii). Following the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Surajmani (supra), an identical matter was decided by this Court in CWPOA No. 5234 of 2020, titled as Maan Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, decided on 06.10.2025, after relying upon the Division Bench judgement of this Court in LPA No. 183 of 2024 Jai Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 27.08.2025 and in LPA No. 184 of 2024, Naresh Kumar versus Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar, H.P. Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Palampur and another, decided on 27.08.2025, entitling the daily wagers for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service but the relief(s) shall be limited to notional benefits. GRANT OF REGULARISATION CANNOT BE BASIS FOR DENYING WORK SHARGE FROM EARLIER DATE: 6(iv). While adjudicating the claim in case of Maan Singh (supra), the contention of the State Authorities that once the regularization was granted then, the work charge status from an earlier date could not be granted by this Court. This contention was turned down in view of the principles, laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the State of Himachal Pradesh versus Gehar Singh, (2007) 12 SCC 43 , which was reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.231 of 2025, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Gita Ram Sharma, decided on 27.08.2025 in the following terms: 5(v). Besides, the above, mere grant of regularization cannot be a ground to deny the Work Charge Status from an earlier date, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh versus Gehar Singh, (2007) 12 SCC 43 , which principle was reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.231 of 2025, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Gita Ram Sharma, decided on 27.08.2025. In these circumstances, the objection of the State Authorities cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny, when, the conferment of Work Charge Status is just a grant of better status, with higher pay in running pay scale, in lieu of the prolonged daily waged service rendered by such incumbent.Based on the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Surajmani (supra), Learned State Counsel is unable to dispute the settled position of law and entitlement of daily wagers for Work Charge Status, as referred to above. In above backdrop, once the judgment in the case of Surajmani (supra), is a judgment in rem, therefore, the State Authorities as well as this Court and the petitioner is bound by the mandate contained therein, entitling the petitioner for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service, whereas the consequential relief(s) were limited to “notional benefits”. In the teeth of the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar and Surajmani (supra), this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner shall be entitled for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service [which already stands accorded to him in terms of the order dated 19.10.2015 w.e.f. 01.01.2002 and pay fixation which stands granted but the consequential relief(s) shall only be limited to “notional benefits.” Claim and contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that consequent upon the grant of work charge status on 19.10.2015 [Annexure R-1]w.e.f. 01.01.2002, the petitioner may be granted all consequential benefits, including actual-monetary benefits is wholly misconceived and is devoid of any merit, for the reason, that as per the mandate of law, in case of Surajmani (supra), upon grant of work charge status, the relief shall be limited to “notional benefits” only. Benefits can neither be claimed nor granted dehors the mandate of law in the cases of Ashwani Kumar and Surajmani (supra) and accordingly, the contention of Learned Counsel for the petitioner for granting him all consequential benefits and/or all past arrears is turned down/ rejected. CLAIM FOR CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND PAST ARREARS FROM DATE OF CONFERMEMNT OF WORK CHARGED STATUS- IMPERMISSIBLE: 6(v). Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that upon grant of work charge status the past arrears have been released in whole or in part to others and therefore, the same may be released to petitioner also. CLAIM FOR CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND PAST ARREARS FROM DATE OF CONFERMEMNT OF WORK CHARGED STATUS- IMPERMISSIBLE: 6(v). Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that upon grant of work charge status the past arrears have been released in whole or in part to others and therefore, the same may be released to petitioner also. Upon conferment of work charged status, claim for consequential benefits, including past arrears was negated and turned down by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 231 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Gita Ram Sharma, decided on 27.08.2025, when, firstly, the directions to grant all consequential benefits or restricted consequential benefits is ex-facie contrary to the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra) which limits reliefs to “notional benefits” only ; and secondly, the directions to limit the relief to “notional benefits” was based on the findings recorded in Para 8 of the judgment in case of Surajmani (supra), mandating that the daily wagers who were not regularly appointed or meaning thereby, that the daily wagers who were appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme should not be granted extra benefits, which will burden the State Exchequer and it is in this backdrop, that the succor was given to the State, by modifying the orders passed by Learned State Administrative Tribunal, giving “all consequential benefits”, which were upheld by the Division Bench of this Court, to “notional benefits” by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar [Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019, decided on 22.07.2019]. Further, this principle of “notional benefits” stands reinforced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Surajmani [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, arising from SLP (C) 23016 of 2023, decided on 06.02.2025]; and thirdly, the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Ashwani Kumar and Surajmani (supra), limiting relief to “notional benefits” cannot be permitted to be tinkered with in any eventuality ; and fourthly, grant of “all consequential benefits”or “restricted consequential benefits” shall amount to giving leverage or premium to those daily wagers who were not regularly appointed or were appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme embodied in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India i.e. without there being a sanctioned post, without advertising the post, without inviting applications from eligible candidates and without determining the comparative merit of all eligible candidates in-accordance with the Constitutional Scheme; and fifthly, even Financial incentives i.e. “all consequential benefits” or “restricted consequential benefits” cannot be extended to daily wagers who were not regularly appointed or were appointed dehors the established ethos of public employment by a back door method; and sixthly, the Right to “all consequential benefits or restricted consequential benefits” can only accrue to an incumbent including daily wager who is appointed in accordance with the Constitutional Scheme, which has been outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 01} and same stands reaffirmed in case of Surajmani (supra) also; and seventhly, mere filing of a petition(s) or its pendency either before State Administrative Tribunal or this Court for work charge status, by a daily wager who was not regularly appointed in accordance with the established ethos of public appointment or was otherwise appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme will not confer any legally enforceable right on such daily wager for “all consequential benefits” or “restricted consequential benefits” as the case may be ; and lastly, foreseeing the eventuality that some daily wagers were granted work charge status with “all consequential benefits or restricted consequential benefits” by the State Authorities, despite the fact that such daily wagers were not regularly appointed or were appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme, therefore, in order to carve out a parity and to obviate the charge of discrimination inter-se such daily wagers as a class, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has mandated in Para 11 of the judgment in case of benefits” by the State Authorities, despite the fact that such daily wagers were not regularly appointed or were appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme, therefore, in order to carve out a parity and to obviate the charge of discrimination inter-se such daily wagers as a class, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has mandated in Para 11 of the judgment in case of Surajmani (supra) reserving liberty for the State Authorities to recover excess benefits, if any, in installments, from those daily wagers who were not regularly appointed or were appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme, by entitling all such daily wagers for work charge status but by limiting the relief to “notional benefits, in tune with the mandate of law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ashwani Kumar (supra), which stands reinforced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Surajmani (supra). In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to point before this Court any eventuality or distinguishing feature to establish that is appointment on daily wage basis was made after following the constitutional mandate enshrined in the Constitutional Scheme under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India {after issuance of due advertisement for filling a sanctioned post, after inviting the applications from eligible candidates, after considering all eligibles, and after determining comparative merit and in appointing most meritorious therefrom}. In absence of these compliances, the daily appointment was a back door appointment and such persons cannot be treated to have been “regularly appointed”. Absence of these essential ingredients, leads to the only legal inference that appointment of the petitioner was dehors the ethos of constitutional scheme. In these circumstances, once the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra), has held those daily wagers, who were not “regularly appointed” in terms of the Constitutional Scheme, to be entitled for work charged status, by limiting the relief(s) to “notional benefits”, without any past arrears therefore, the claim and contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner for consequential benefits, including or arrears, upon grant of work charged status, does not stand to rationale and logic and such a relief cannot be granted dehors the principle outlined by the Honble Supreme Court in the cases of Ashwani Kumar and Surajmani (supra) and followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gita Ram Sharma (supra), as referred to above. PLEA FOR RECOVERY TENABLE AT THIS STAGE: 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that in terms of Para 11 of the judgment in the case of Surajmani (supra), upon conferment of work charge status, in case consequential benefits, including past arrears (wholly or in part) have been released to the petitioner and others, then, in the teeth of the mandate in case of Surajmani (supra), the State Authorities-Respondents, have to take a conscious call, in principle, either to recover or not to recover excess amount(s), already paid, (wholly or in part) from similar incumbents, in view of the fact that such daily wagers, upon grant of work charged status, have been held entitled to relief of “notional benefits”. On query by this Court, the Learned State Counsel states that no conscious decision has been taken as yet, by the State Authorities, qua recovery of excess amount, released, if any. Accordingly, till the State Authorities-Respondents herein, take a conscious decision, qua the recovery of any consequential benefits, including past arrears (wholly or in part) released/granted to the petitioner, this Court directs State Authorities, not to recover, any excess amount, if any, from the petitioner(s), hereinafter. DIRECTIONS: 8. In view of the above discussion and the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is disposed of, in following terms: (i) Conferment of work charge status to the petitioner as Beldar in terms of order dated 19.10.2015 [Annexure R-1] w.e.f. 01.01.2002 from date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service is upheld; (ii) Upon grant of work charge status, the petitioner shall be entitled for “notional benefits” without any past arrears, in view of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar and Surajmani (supra) and the Division Bench judgement of this Court in Gita Ram Sharma, (supra); (iii) Till State Authorities-Respondents take a conscious decision either to recover or not to recover the excess amount of consequential benefits, including the past arrears, (released wholly or in part); the State Authorities shall not resort to any recovery, from petitioner(s) in terms of Para 11 of the judgment in the case of Surajmani (supra) ; (iv) Parties to bear their respective costs. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of, accordingly.