2025:HHC:46543 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No.514 of 2019 Decided on: 05.12.2025 __________________________________________________________ Dharam Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another ....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Ranjan Sharma, Judge Petitioner, Dharam Singh, initially filed CWP No.874 of 2015 before this Court and upon establishment of State Administrative Tribunal, the matter was transferred to Tribunal; and after its abolition, the matter stood transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No.514 of 2019, seeking the following reliefs:- “11(i) That the order dated 30-06-2014 at Annexure P-3 may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside and further the petitioner may kindly be held entitled for regularization of service/work charge status w.e.f. the date of completion of 8 years of services i.e. 06-10-2004, with all consequential benefits including grant of pension and gratuity; 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:46543 11(ii) That the arrears of salary accrued on account of regularization from due date and the CPF dues of the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be paid with interest.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Grievance is that the petitioner was initially engaged as daily wager Beldar/Animal Husbandry Attendant in the Animal Husband Department on 07.10.1996 after being sponsored by Employment Exchange [Ex-servicemen Cell] and he joined as such on 07.10.1996. Petitioner continued to work under the Respondents and his services were regularized by the Respondents in the month of August 2007 as per Regularization Policy framed by the Government. Petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2011. In this backdrop, the instant petition has been filed, with the prayer for granting him regularization or work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service in the Department [w.e.f. 06.10.2004] with all consequential benefits; with the further prayer that the CPF dues may be ordered to be released to the petitioner. STAND OF RESPONDENTS IN REPLY-AFFIDAVIT: 3 2025:HHC:46543 3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice by this Court on 27.02.2015, State Authorities have filed Reply-Affidavit dated 11.07.2016 of Director, Animal Husbandry, Himachal Pradesh. 3(i). In reply, the Respondents have not disputed the incumbency that the petitioner joined as a Beldar on daily wage basis in Animal Husbandry Department on 07.10.1996 and he was regularized on 16.08.2007. It is averred that the petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2011 after rendering 03 years, 07 months and 10 days of regular service and he is not entitled for pension in view of the CCS (Pension) Rules. 3(ii). It is averred that the petitioner cannot be granted the work charge status, as the Respondent- Animal Husbandry Department, does not have work charge establishment in terms of the judgments in cases of Rakesh Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters [CWP No.2735 of 2010] decided on 28.07.2010; Jaswant Singh and others versus Union of India and others [(1979) 4 SCC 440]; and State of 4 2025:HHC:46543 Rajasthan versus Kunji Ram [(1997) 2 SSC 517]. It is averred that admissible retiral benefits of leave encashment of Rs 29252/- stands released and so far as the claim for CPF is concerned, Reply-Affidavit states that CPF amount will be paid by the Office of District Treasury Officer, Hamirpur. In backdrop, the prayer has been opposed by the Respondents. REBUTTAL BY THE PETITIONER: 4. Petitioner has filed a Rejoinder rebutting the stand of the Respondnets in the Reply-Affidavit and by reiterating his entitlement for regularization or work charge status in terms of the judgments rendered in the cases of Rakesh Kumar [supra] [Annexure AR-1] and Mathu Ram versus Municipal Corporation and others [CWP No. 2415 of 2012] decided on 31.07.2014 [Annexure AR-2]. 5. Heard, Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Learned Counsel, for the petitioner and Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents. ANALYSIS: 6. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the material on record, this Court is of the considered view, that the claim 5 2025:HHC:46543 of the petitioner for work charge status from the date he completes 8 years of continuous daily wage service w.e.f. 07.10.2004, deserves to be allowed, for following reasons:- ENTITLEMENT OF DAILY WAGERS FOR WORK CHARGE STATUS: 6(i). The issue as to whether the daily wagers who have completed 8 years of continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year are to be entitled for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous service, stands answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Others versus Surajmani and Another [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025 and other connected matters, decided on 06.02.2025, entitling daily wagers for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous service, by limiting the relief to notional benefits, in the following terms:- “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 6 2025:HHC:46543 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. 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 7 2025:HHC:46543 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. 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. 8 2025:HHC:46543 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. 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 9 2025:HHC:46543 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 10 2025:HHC:46543 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 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 11 2025:HHC:46543 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].” 6(ii). Entitlement of the daily wagers for work charge status from the date of completion of 08 years continuous daily waged service has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No (s). 11170 of 2024, titled as The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors vs Janak Dev Sharma, decided on 26.05.2025, that the benefit of the judgment in 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 12 2025:HHC:46543 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 w.e.f. 07.10.2004 but by limiting the reliefs to “notional benefits” is affirmed. However, it is clarified that upon grant of work charge status, the petitioner shall be entitled for “notional benefit” of fixation of pay in the applicable pay scale till regularization and benefit of said higher fixation till retirement notionally but without past arrear, in the view of the declaration of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Surajmani [supra], reiterated in case of Janak Dev Sharma [supra]. CLAIM FOR PAST ARREARS ECLIPSED DUE TO RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION OF JUDGMENT IN SURAJMANI 7. Plea of Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends for the past arrears (wholly or in part) as granted to others is wholly misconceived in view 13 2025:HHC:46543 of the fact that 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 even 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, “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, the relief shall be limited to “notional benefits” and if “extra benefits” {past arrears, wholly or in part) stood released to any employee, then also, the extra benefits so released 14 2025:HHC:46543 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” or 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, in the light of the principle outlined by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of 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 15 2025:HHC:46543 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. Further, it is done not to unsettle something which has long been settled, as that would cause injustice to many.” 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 16 2025:HHC:46543 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 17 2025:HHC:46543 inter-se incumbents who were regularly appointed, inaccordance 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, inconsonance 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 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 18 2025:HHC:46543 the petitioners for parity for past arrears with 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 same cannot be granted dehors the mandate of in the case of Surajmani (supra). 8. State Authorities have taken a stand in the Reply-Affidavit that the Respondent-Department does not have a work charge establishment and therefore, the work charge status cannot be accorded to the petitioner. The above contention of the Respondents- State is misconceived, for the reason, that once the Hon’ble Supreme Court has declared the law in the case of Surajmani (supra) entitling the daily wagers for work charge status, from the date of completion of 08 years of continuous daily wage service, by upholding the view taken by this Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar [supra] [in CWP No. 3101 of 2016], was upheld in Civil Appeal No 19 2025:HHC:46543 5753 of 2019 [supra], that for conferment of work charge status, there is neither any requirement of a post nor will the abolition or conversion of post have any effect on grant of work charge status. Reliance place by the State Authorities on the judgments rendered in the cases of Jaswant Singh & Kunji Ram (supra) was misplaced as the fact situation in those cases was entirely different vis- à-vis the concept of work charge status in State of Himachal Pradesh which contemplated for grant of better status in a time scale to daily wagers in recognition of the prolonged daily waged service. While dismissing numerous appeals filed by the State, once the findings recorded by this Court that for granting work charge status there is neither the requirement of work charge establishment nor will the abolition or conversion of posts, if any, shall have any effect on granting or conferring such status to daily wagers and even the Honble Supreme Court has not mandated any pre-conditions for grant of work charge status then, the plea of the State Authorities amounts to negating the 20 2025:HHC:46543 concept of work charge status and defeating the mandate of the Honble Supreme Court in case of Surajmani, (supra) cannot sustain. Thus, in these circumstances, the State action denying the benefits of work charge status to the petitioner by raising hyper-technical grounds is rendered inoperative and is deprecated. DIRECTIONS: 9. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, instant petition is allowed, in the following terms:- (i) State Authorities shall grant work charge status to the petitioner from the date of completion of 08 years of continuous daily wage service w.e.f. 06.10.2004 forthwith; (ii) State Authorities are directed to extend benefits accruing from work charge status “notionally”, in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani [supra] from due date i.e. the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service; (iii) Upon grant of work charge status, the petitioner shall be entitled to “notionally benefits”; but without past-arrears; (iv) Consequent upon the grant of work charge status w.e.f. 07.10.2004, the State 21 2025:HHC:46543 Authorities shall release the revised gratuity; and admissible leave encashment and CPF to the petitioner; within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified / downloaded copy of this judgment; (v). Failing to release the admissible benefits shall entitle the petitioner for interest at the rate of 6% per annum thereafter till realization; (vi) Costs made easy for respective parties. In the aforesaid terms, the instant petitions and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall accordingly stand disposed of. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge December 05, 2025 [Bhardwaj]