JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, Judge Petitioner, Ranjeet Singh had initially filed an Original Application i.e. OA No 6670 of 2017 before Learned Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal and upon abolition of the Tribunal, the same was transferred to this Court as CWPOA No. 3330 of 2020, seeking the following relief(s): “(i). That the applicant is entitled for regularization in terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. in CWP 2735/2010 decided on 28.07.2010 and followed by this Hon’ble Tribunal. (ii). That the arrears w.e.f. completion of 8 years with interest may also be granted in favour of the applicant. (iii). That the applicant be considered for regularization in term of Rakesh Kumar CWP 2735/2020 in completion of 8 years. (iv). That the seniority and consequential benefits may also be granted in favour of the applicant w.e.f. after completion of 8 ears with 240 days in one calendar year.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Grievance is that the petitioner was engaged as an Air Compressor Operator [Class-III] w.e.f. 15.05.1995 under HPPWD, Division Kalpa in District Kinnaur, which is a tribal area on 15.05.1995 and he was regularized as Air Compressor Operator w.e.f. 13.12.2006 [Annexure A-1] and he retired from service on 30.04.2016 [Annexure A-3]. 2(i). In this backdrop, the petitioner has filed the instant petition that the State Authorities have granted regularization/work charge status to daily waged incumbents from the date they completed 08 years of continuous service whereas the respondents have granted regularization to the petitioner after about 11 years on 13.12.2006 [Annexure A-2] and he joined on 14.12.2006 [Annexure A-3] but the Respondents have denied work charge status from the date he completed requisite 08 years continuous service [i.e. 180 days for tribal areas] from the due date. In instant petition, a prayer is made for seeking the benefit of regularization/work charge status to the petitioner from due date of completion of 08 years of continuous daily waged service from 01.01.2003 with all consequential benefits. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT: 3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 08.01.2018, the State Authorities have filed Reply- Affidavit dated 27.02.2018 of Superintending Engineer 11th Circle, Rampur. 3(i). Perusal of the Reply-Affidavit admits the incumbency that the petitioner was engaged as daily waged Air Compressor Operator w.e.f. 15.05.1995 and was regularized on 13.12.2006 on the same post. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 08.01.2018, the State Authorities have filed Reply- Affidavit dated 27.02.2018 of Superintending Engineer 11th Circle, Rampur. 3(i). Perusal of the Reply-Affidavit admits the incumbency that the petitioner was engaged as daily waged Air Compressor Operator w.e.f. 15.05.1995 and was regularized on 13.12.2006 on the same post. It is averred that petitioner joined the regularization without protest. Reply-Affidavit indicates that the work charge status from the date of completion of 08 years of continuous service i.e. w.e.f. 01.01.2003 cannot be granted to the petitioner as work charge establishment in case of Class-III employees, stood abolished by the State Government w.e.f. 01.04.2001. The Mandays Chart was enclosed with the reply as Annexure R-1. Reply-Affidavit further indicates that once the petitioner stands regularized on 14.12.2006 [Annexure A-2] therefore, the claim for work charge status from an anterior date was not tenable. It is in this background that the respondents have opposed the claim of the petitioner. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner on Instructions states that he does not intend to file rejoinder [Statement Taken on Record]. 5. Heard, Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Learned State Counsel and have gone through the material available on record. ANALYSIS: 6. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that though the claim of the petitioner in the instant petition is for regularization from the date of completion of 08 years of continuous service but the claim for lesser relief of work-charge status, is accepted for the following reasons:- ELIGIBILITY FOR WORK CHARGE STATUS UPON COMPLETION OF 08 YEARS CONTINUOUS DAILY WAGED SERVICE: 6(i). Perusal of the Mandays Chart [Annexure R-1] with the Reply-Affidavit indicates that the petitioner was engaged as Air Compressor Operator on daily wage basis in HPPWD, Sub-Division Reckong Peo, which is a tribal area and the petitioner has completed 08 years of continuous service [with 180 days as prescribed for tribal areas from 1995 till 31.12.2002]. After completion of requisite 08 years of continuous daily wage service, the petitioner became eligible and entitled work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2003 which has not been accorded as yet. ENTITLEMENT FOR WORK CHARGED STATUS AS MANDATED BY LAW: 6(ii). After completion of requisite 08 years of continuous daily wage service, the petitioner became eligible and entitled work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2003 which has not been accorded as yet. ENTITLEMENT FOR WORK CHARGED STATUS AS MANDATED BY LAW: 6(ii). The issue as to whether the daily wagers of all Government departments are entitled for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous service stands adjudicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors vs Ashwani Kumar [Civil Appeal No 5753 of 2019, decided on 22.07.2019] and reinforced in Civil Appeal No 1595 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh & Others versus Surajmani & Anr along with other connected matters, decided on 06.02.2025, in the following terms: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 notbeen 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. 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. 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. 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 . 6(iii). The mandate of law in Surajmani (supra) has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No (s) 11170 of 2024, in Re: The State of H.P. & Ors. versus Janak Dev Sharma, decided on 26.05.2025. Based on the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar, Surajmani and Janak Dev Sharma (supra) the petitioner is held entitled for work charge status from the date he completes 08 years of continuous daily waged service as Air Compressor Operator [Class-III] w.e.f. 01.01.2003 onwards. NOTIONAL BENEFITS GRANTED INSTEAD OF CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS: 6(iv). So far as the claim of the petitioner for consequential benefits is concerned, this Court does not find any merit in the said claim, for the reason, that the judgment in the case of Ashwani Kumar, reinforced in the case of Surajmani (supra) and was reiterated in the case of Janak Dev Sharma (supra) entitle the daily wager for relief of “notional benefits” upon grant of work charge status. 6(v). Once the relief accruing from work charge status was directed to be accorded with “notional benefits” then the claim of the petitioner for past arrears is not tenable. 6(v). Once the relief accruing from work charge status was directed to be accorded with “notional benefits” then the claim of the petitioner for past arrears is not tenable. However, it is made clear that term “notional benefits” shall certainly entitle the petitioner for fixation of pay in the applicable pay scale from date of grant of work charge status from due date [01.01.2003] with annual increments till his regularization as an Air Compressor Operatoron 14.12.2006 and benefit of higher pay fixation till retirement on 30.04.2016 notionally but without past arrears. CLAIM FOR PAST ARREARS-IMPERMISSIBLE: 6(vi). Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that upon grant of work charge status, the State Authorities have granted entire past arrears or the arrears for three years preceding filing of petition to other incumbents and therefore, the petitioner may be extended parity in treatment. CLAIM FOR PAST ARREARS-IMPERMISSIBLE: 6(vi). Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that upon grant of work charge status, the State Authorities have granted entire past arrears or the arrears for three years preceding filing of petition to other incumbents and therefore, the petitioner may be extended parity in treatment. EXCESS AMOUNT GRANTED ON CONFERMENT OF WORK CHARGE STATUS BY ORDERS OF TRIBUNAL-COURTS- HELD RECOVERABLE: Contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner for releasing him entire past arrears or restricted arrears for three years preceding filing of petition is devoid of any merit, for the reason, firstly, the judgment in Surajmani (supra) mandates that incumbents who were “not regularly appointed” or were not appointed inaccordance with the ethos of the Constitutional Scheme of Articles 14 & 16, upon grant of work charged status were held entitled for “notional benefits”; and secondly, the mandate of "notional benefits" implies grant of pay fixation in the applicable pay scale from the due date with annual increments only, and thirdly, the principle of notional benefits, "does not encompasses grant of past arrears"; and fourthly, once the judgement in the case of Surajmani (supra) is a judgment-in-rem approving grant of work charge status with "notional benefits" therefore, the claim for past arrears (wholly or in part) can neither be claimed nor granted to the petitioner dehors the mandate of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra); and fifthly, the plea of the petitioner that once the benefit of past arrears (wholly or in part) has been given to others upon grant rant of work charge status and therefore, the petitioner may be granted same benefits cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny for the reason, that the judgement in the case of Surajmani (supra) takes care of this eventuality by mandating that persons who were not regularly appointed and their appointment was not made in accordance with the ethos of the Constitutional Scheme of Articles 14 & 16 but were given any past arrears (wholly or in part) so as to implement the orders of the Tribunal, High Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court then, release of past arrears, if any was “treated as excess amount(s) which was liable to be recoverable”, in the case of Surajmani, (supra) in the following terms:- “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 bemodified, 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. 11. 11. We also make it explicitly clear that the State in its endeavor 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.” PAST ARREARS RENDERED INOPERATIVE AND ECLIPSED DUE TO RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION OF JUDGMENT IN SURAJMANI: 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 claimas 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. REGULARIZATION NOT BAR FOR GRANTING WORK CHARGE STATUS: 6(vii). REGULARIZATION NOT BAR FOR GRANTING WORK CHARGE STATUS: 6(vii). Learned State Counsel raised an objection that once the petitioner stands regularized as an Air Compressor Operator on 14.12.2006 [Annexure A-2] then, the claim for work charge status from 01.01.2003 cannot be granted. Above contention of Learned State Counsel appears to be attractive at the threshold but on testing the aforesaid contention the same does not hold the ground for the reason that the issue as to whether the employee who has been regularized could be denied the work charge status from the due date stands answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh versus Gehar Singh , (2007) 12 SCC 43 , 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.” 6(viii). 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.” 6(viii). Even, the Division Bench of this Court, in various judgments in LPA No. 82 of 2025, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Pritam Chand , decided on 27.08.2025, LPA No 100 of 2025, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Layak Ram , has reiterated that even if the benefit of regularization has been accorded then, the lesser claim for work charge status which accrues from the mandate of law in the cases of Ashwani Kumar, Surajmani and Janak Dev Sharma (supra) cannot be restricted, curtailed or denied in any mannerwhatsoever being a judgment in rem which is binding not only on the Courts but on State Authorities also. In these circumstances, the objection taken by the State Authorities in the Reply-Affidavit is turned down and notwithstanding the regularization, the lesser relief of work-charge status from an anterior date was valid. 7. No other point was raised/argued, DIRECTIONS: 8. In view of above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed, in following terms: (i). Petitioner is held entitled for work charge status from the date of completion of 08 years of continuous service as an Air Compressor Operator [Class-III] w.e.f. 01.01.2003, in terms of the mandate in the case of Surajmani (supra); (ii). State Authorities are directed to grant work charge status but with “Notional Benefits” as per the mandate in the case of Surajmani (supra) but without any past arrears; (iii). Claim of the petitioner for entire consequential benefits [all past arrears or restrictive arrears] for three yearsprior to filing of the petition is declined, in the light of Para 11 of Surajmani (supra); (iv). Parties to bear respective costs. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition as well as miscellaneous application(s), if any, is disposed of.