2025:HHC:46535 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No.1331 of 2019 Decided on: 03.12.2025 ____________________________________________________________ 1. CWPOA No.1331 of 2019 Bal Bahadur (since deceased) ...Petitioners Through his legal heir (Shanti) Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondents & Others 2. CWPOA No.1335 of 2019 Ram Bahadur ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondents & Others 3. CWPOA No.1365 of 2019 Man Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondents & Others 4. CWPOA No.1374 of 2019 Til Bahadur ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondents & Others 5. CWPOA No.1383 of 2019 Bhim Bahadur & Another ...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondents & Others 6. CWPOA No.1395 of 2019 Hasta Bahadur ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondents & Others 2025:HHC:46535 - 2 - 7. CWPOA No.2523 of 2020 Bimla ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondents & Others Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the petitioners: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate, in all the petitions, except in CWPOA No.1383 of 2019. Mr. Ashwani Gupta, Advocate, in CWPOA No.1383 of 2019. For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State, in all the petitions. Ranjan Sharma, Judge [Oral] Petitioners herein namely, Bal Bahadur (since deceased through his legal heir (Shanti), Ram Bahadur, Man Singh, Til Bahadur, Bhim Bahadur, Hata Bahadur and Bimla had filed Civil Writ Petition(s) Nos.4076 4055, 4079, 4529, 4259, 3916 of 2014 before this Court and on establishment of State Administrative Tribunal these matters were transferred to Tribunal; but upon its abolition, these matters were re-transferred to this Court and were registered as 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:46535 - 3 - CWPOAs Nos.1331, 1335, 1365, 1374, 1383, 1395 of 2019. Likewise, Original Application No.3670 of 2017 was initially filed before State Administrative Tribunal and upon its abolition, the same was re-transferred to this Court and was registered as CWPOA No.2523 of 2020, and with the consent of parties, all these are taken up for adjudication together. 2. Perusal of the Prayer Clause in all the connected cases indicate that at the relevant time all the petitioners being in-service/employees [except petitioner, Bal Bahadur in CWPOA No.1331 of 2019 who had died and is substituted legal heir(s)] have come up before this Court, seeking the prayer for quashing and setting aside Rule 14 of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Beldar notified by the State Government on 01.07.2014 [Annexure P-2]. The second prayer was that the State Authorities may be directed to regularize the petitioners from date of completion of eight years of continuous daily wage service with all consequential benefits. 3. During the course of hearing today, Learned Counsel(s) for the petitioners Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma 2025:HHC:46535 - 4 - and Mr. Ashwani Gupta jointly state that the prayer for quashing Rule 14 of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified on 01.07.2014 published on 03.07.2014 [Annexure P-2] is not pressed in instant petitions. [Statement Taken on Record]. Learned Counsel(s) further jointly represent that though the petitioners have prayed for relief for regularization from the date of completion of eight years of continuous service, but in view of subsequent developments and the declaration of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, titled as The State of Himachal Pradesh versus Surajmani & anr., decided on 06.02.2025, the petitioners may be granted work charge status from the date of completion of eight years of continuous daily wage work charge status with eligible consequential benefits. 4. For the purposes of appreciating the claim for work charge status being a lesser relief vis-à-vis the claim for regularization as prayed for in all the above petitions, a Tabular Chart showing the incumbency of the petitioners, is detailed 2025:HHC:46535 - 5 - hereinbelow:- TABULAR CHART SHOWING INCUMBENCY OF PETITIONERS: Sr. No. Name & Number of Writ Petition Date of initial Engagement as daily wager [without 240 days] & Division Date from which 240 days continuous service commenced. Date of completion of 8 years continuous service Date of Eligibility for Work Charge Status Date of regularization, if any. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1. Bal Bahadur (Since deceased) through Shanti Versus State of HP & Others [CWPOA No.1331/2019] January, 1998 (Beldar) Division No.I, PWD- IGMC, Winter Field Shimla. [worked for 208 days in 2009] 01.01.2000 31.12.2007 01.01.2008 Not available. 2. Ram Bahadur Versus State of H.P. & Others [CWPOA No.1335 of 2019] 01.01.1999 (Beldar) Kumarsain Division 01.01.1999 [as per Para 3(a) of Reply] 31.12.2006 01.01.2007 Not available. 3. Man Singh Versus State of H.P. & Others [CWPOA No.1365 of 2019] 1998 as Beldar in Winter Field, Division No.I, Shimla [240 days not completed] 01.01.1999 31.12.2006 01.01.2007 Not available. 4. Til Bahadur Versus State of HP & Others [CWPOA No.1374 of 2019] 01.10.1997 (Beldar) in Kumarsain Division 01.01.1998 31.12.2005 01.01.2006 Not available. 5. Bhim Bahadur & Another Versus State of HP & Others [CWPOA No.1383 of 2019] January 2000 as (Beldar) in Division Kalpa. 01.01.2000 31.12.2007 01.01.2008 Not available. 6. Hasta Bahadur Versus State of HP & Others [CWPOA No.1395 of 2019] November 2001 as (Beldar) in Kumarsain Division without 240 days. 01.01.2002 31.12.2009 01.01.2010 Not available. 7. Bimla Versus State of H.P. & Others [CWPOA No.2523 of 2020] 1998 as (Beldar) in Winter Field, Division No.I, Shimla. 01.01.1998 31.12.2005 01.01.2006 01.10.2016 2025:HHC:46535 - 6 - STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES REGARDING REGULARIZATION: 5. The State Authorities have filed Reply- Affidavit(s) objecting to the claim for granting regularization on the ground that the petitioners are Nepali Citizens and they were engaged as Beldars in Respondent-Department. It is further averred that the Existing Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Beldar notified on 17.06.1996 were amended on 01.07.2004 and were published in the Gazette on 03.07.2004 [Annexure P-2] by providing in Rule 14, that regular appointment was to be given to the persons who were Citizens of India and since the petitioners were Nepali Citizens; therefore, they were not eligible for regularization. It is in this backdrop, the Respondents have objected to the prayer of the petitioners for regularization from the date of completion of eight years of continuous service. REBUTTAL BY PETITIONERS: 6. Though, the petitioners have not filed any rejoinder to the Reply-Affidavit(s) filed by the State Authorities, but during the course of 2025:HHC:46535 - 7 - hearing, the Learned Counsel(s) for the petitioners submit that the amendment dated 01/03.07.2004 [Annexure P-2] cannot be applied retrospectively and since petitioners were engaged as Beldars on different dates between the year 1997 to November 2001, therefore, the amendment could not be made the basis for depriving them of their fundamental right of consideration in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules dated 05.05.1995 [Annexure P-1] and the Rules dated 17.06.1996. It is further submitted that the Rules in force on the date of initial appointment were to apply and not the amended Rules and the right which had accrued on the basis of Rules in force on date of initial appointment cannot be taken away by amendment. In these circumstances, it was submitted that the stand in reply based on the amended Rules was neither applicable nor attracted in facts of these cases. MANDATE OF LAW ENTITLING DAILY WAGES FOR WORK CHARGE STATUS: 6(i). Notwithstanding the claim of the 2025:HHC:46535 - 8 - petitioners for regularization [which is not being pressed] as above, Learned Counsel(s) jointly represent that during pendency of the instant petitions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has declared the law entitling the daily wagers for work charge status from the date of completion of eight years of continuous daily wage service in 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 2025:HHC:46535 - 9 - 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.” 2025:HHC:46535 - 10 - 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. 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 2025:HHC:46535 - 11 - 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 2025:HHC:46535 - 12 - ‘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. 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 2025:HHC:46535 - 13 - 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. 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 2025:HHC:46535 - 14 - (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 2025:HHC:46535 - 15 - Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1.” STAND OF LEARNED STATE COUNSEL REGARDING MODIFIED PRAYER FOR WORK CHARGE STATUS: 7. As propos to the prayer for work charge status, Learned State Counsel Mr. Sumit Sharma, submits that the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra) is not in dispute. He further submits that since new plea has now been raised during the course of hearing therefore, in peculiar facts of these cases, this Court, may leave it open, for the State Authorities to examine/consider the case of petitioners for conferment of work charge status in the light of the judgment, in case of Surajmani, subject to its applicability and verification of mandays of the petitioners. 8. Faced with this situation, Learned Counsel(s) for the petitioners, Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma and Mr. Ashwani Kumar Gupta, Advocates submit that the petitioners shall be satisfied in case, the respondents are directed to examine the claim of the petitioners in accordance with law. 2025:HHC:46535 - 16 - 9. Without going into the rival claims and contentions and leaving all questions open and in view the Statement made by Learned Counsel(s) for the petitioners confining the relief only for conferment of Work Charge Status, this Court, disposes off all the writ petitions, in the following terms: (i). State Authorities are directed to consider/examine the claim of the petitioners for conferment of work charge status, in terms of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra) in accordance with law; (ii). Upon consideration and subject to verification of mandays, in case, the petitioners are found eligible and entitled for work charge status in terms of the judgment in the case of Surajmani (supra) then, the State Authorities shall grant work charge status to the petitioners from the date of completion of eight years of continuous service from due date but by limiting the relief to notional benefits, without any past arrears; (iii). Upon grant of work charge status, as in directions No.(i) & (ii) (supra), the in-service petitioners shall be granted 2025:HHC:46535 - 17 - work charge status from due date on notional basis and on actual basis from date of issuance of orders; and in case of deceased employee, the substituted petitioner-legal heir of [Bal Bahadur, in CWPOA No.1331 of 2019] may be given notional benefits and admissible family pension from date of death, in accordance with law; (iv). As prayed, petitioners are permitted to make representation, if so desired, the competent authority pointing out additional material/subsequent developments, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified/downloaded copy of this order; (v). State Authorities are directed to complete entire process in terms of directions No.(i) to (iv), within outer time line of three months from the date of receipt of certified/downloaded copy of this order; (vi).Costs made easy for respective parties. In the aforesaid terms, all the writ petitions along with pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, accordingly, stand disposed of. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge December 03, 2025 [Shivender]