Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3808 (HP)

Lachhmi Dass v. State of HP

2025-10-29

Ranjan Sharma

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. Petitioner, Lachhmi Dass, has come up before this Court, seeking the following reliefs:- “9(a) To issue a writ mandamus, appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof, directing the respondent department to grant the similar benefits to the petitioners as has been granted to the persons in CWP No.1653/2008 & LPA No.65/2010 with all the consequential benefits.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was engaged as daily wage Beldar-Labourer in Forest Range, Kunihar, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in the year 1991, but despite completion of continuous service [except in the years 1994-1995], the petitioner has not been granted the work charge status from the date he completes 10 years of continuous daily wage service, whereas, the benefit of work charge status has been given to similarly placed incumbents. It is further averred that petitioner had filed CWP No.2126 of 2011, titled as Lachhmi Dass Versus State of H.P. & ors., which was decided by this Court on 18.04.2011, by directing the State Authorities to verify the factual details and to consider the case of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya Versus State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316. It is further averred that the State Authorities have passed consideration order on 07.12.2011 [Annexure P-5], whereby, the claim for conferment of work charge status was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has rendered continuous service from the year 2000 onwards and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for work charge status. STAND OF RESPONDENTS IN REPLY-AFFIDAVIT: 3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, State Authorities have filed Reply-Affidavit of Conservator of Forests, Bilaspur, dated 05.12.2014. 3(i). In Para-1 of Preliminary Submissions, State Authorities have admitted that the State Government issued a letter on 18.06.2007, providing for granting work charge status/regularization to daily wagers, who have completed 8 years of continuous daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.03.2006. It is further averred that based on the aforesaid Policy, petitioner did not complete 8 years continuous daily wage service with 240 days, as on 31.12.2005 or 31.03.2006 in terms of the aforesaid Policy issued in the year 2007, as referred to above. It is further averred that based on the aforesaid Policy, petitioner did not complete 8 years continuous daily wage service with 240 days, as on 31.12.2005 or 31.03.2006 in terms of the aforesaid Policy issued in the year 2007, as referred to above. In Para-2 of Reply-Affidavit, State Authorities have enclosed Mandays Chart [Annexure R-1], whereby, petitioner has been shown to have rendered 240 days of continuous daily wage service from the year 2000 onwards. In nutshell, case set up by the State Authorities is that petitioner has conferred 240 days of continuous daily wage service from the year 2000 and petitioner is not entitled for conferment of work charge status in terms of the judgment in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya [supra], which mandates the daily wager to have rendered 10 years of continuous daily wage service with 240 days as on 31.12.1993 or the aforesaid 10 years daily wage service thereafter. Even if, this Court takes into account the Mandays Chart [Annexure P-1 & Annexure P-2], still, the petitioner who is shown to have been engaged with 240 days in 1992, 1993 and 1996 to 2004 cannot be extended the benefit of the judgment in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya [supra], for the reason, that the petitioner has not rendered 240 days continuous daily wage service during the years 1994 and 1995 [for having served only for 182 and 132 days] and due to non-completion of continuous service of 240 days and non-completion of 10 years continuous service, the petitioner is not eligible for grant of work charge status from the date he completes 10 years continuous daily wage service as is being claimed in the writ petition. 3(ii). Learned State Counsel submits that there is variation in Mandays Chart, which has been placed on record by the petitioner vide Annexure P-1 & Annexure P-2 vis-à-vis the Mandays Chart Annexure R-1. He further submits that petitioner claims to have rendered 240 days of continuous daily wage service from the year 1996 as per the Mandays vide Annexure P-1 & Annexure P-2, whereas, as per the Mandays vide Annexure R-1, the State Authorities have treated the continuous daily wage service of the petitioner from the year 2000 onwards. He further submits that petitioner claims to have rendered 240 days of continuous daily wage service from the year 1996 as per the Mandays vide Annexure P-1 & Annexure P-2, whereas, as per the Mandays vide Annexure R-1, the State Authorities have treated the continuous daily wage service of the petitioner from the year 2000 onwards. Learned State Counsel submits that the variance in Mandays leads to disputed questions of fact, which are required to be asserted and proved, by leading evidence before the appropriate forum and not in writ proceedings. 4. Heard, Ms. Archna Dutt, Learned Counsel, for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents. 5. At this stage, Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall be satisfied, in case, the respondents are directed to grant work charge status to the petitioner, from the date, he completes 8 years of continuous daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar years, as per judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case State of Himachal Pradesh & Others versus Surajmani and Another [Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025 and other connected matters, decided on 06.02.2025. 5(i). Learned State Counsel submits that the claim based on judgment in the case of Surajmani [supra] has been raised for first time which shall be examined by the Respondents. The stand appears to be genuine as the judgment in case of Surajmani [supra] is a judgment in rem and the State Authorities are bound to extend the benefit of said judgment to all similarly placed incumbents, including petitioner, in the instant case. 5(ii). As a sequel to the above discussion, this Court takes note of the judgment in the case of Surajmani [supra], which entitles a daily wage for grant of work charge status from the date he completes 8 years of continuous daily wage service, by limiting the benefits “on notional benefits only”. Operative part of the judgment in the case of Surajmani [supra], reads as under:- “5. The workers who had been regularised 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. 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. 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 workcharged 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. 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 aforestated, 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 ].” CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS: 6. Uma Devi [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ].” CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS: 6. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the material on record and in view of the disputed questions of facts and the statement made by Learned Counsel for petitioner [in Para-5 supra], this Court cannot mandate the respondents to confer work charge status to the petitioner from the date he completes 8 years of continuous daily wage service in terms of the judgment in the case of Surajmani [supra], but to meet the ends of justice coupled with the fact that the prayer for work charge status has been raised first time during hearing, therefore, this Court disposes of the instant petition, in the following terms:- (i) As prayed for by Learned Counsel for the petitioner, petitioner shall make a Fresh Representation to the Competent Authority- Respondent No.2-Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh alongwith supporting documents asserting a claim for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service within a period of two months from today; (ii) Upon receipt of Representation, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-Respondent No.2, is directed to examine the claim of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status from the date he completes 8 years of continuous daily wage service in terms of Mandays contained in Annexure R-1, within one month thereafter; (iii) Needless to say, that this Court, has not adjudicated upon the entitlement and rights of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status from the date he completes 8 years of continuous daily wage service;, which is left to be examined by the State Authorities; and (vi) Costs made easy for respective parties. 7. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall accordingly stand disposed of.