IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1758/2024 Decided on: 10.09.2025 Ranjeet Singh & Anr. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J The case set up by the petitioners as canvassed through their learned counsel is that: - Petitioners had preferred Ranjit Singh & Anr. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 seeking work charge status/regularization in view of law laid down in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.3 The said writ petition was disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate representation(s) furnishing all factual details before the competent authority, whereafter, the competent authority was to look into the matter, verify 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 CWP No.6278/2011 decided a/w connected matters on 09.08.2011 3 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316 2 the facts and pass appropriate orders thereupon, in accordance with law, in light of the aforesaid decision. Pursuant to the said decision, office order was issued on 01.12.2011 confirming the work charge status upon the petitioners w.e.f 02.02.2001 and 02.01.2000 respectively. This was followed by office communication dated 04.08.2012 computing Rs.3,39,572/- and Rs.3,96,274/- as arrears to be paid to the petitioners respectively. Petitioners’ grievance in this writ petition is that only first installment of the arrears as computed by the respondents was released to them. Remaining benefits on account of conferment of work charge status have not been released in their favour. With this grievance, the petitioners have claimed following substantive reliefs: - “(i). That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued, directing the respondents to release the balance amount of arrears in view of calculation made as per letter dated 04.08.2012, Annexure P-2, issued by the Additional Secretary (Forests) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to the respondent No.2, within time bound manner. (ii). That the respondent department may also kindly be directed to pay the interest @ 12% per annum to the petitioners from the date of granting work-charge status and further from the date of its calculation made vide letter dated 04.08.2012, Annexure P-2 till the date of its actual realization.” 3 2. The respondents have filed their reply and also placed on record instructions. Following specific order was passed in this writ petition on 31.12.2024: - “Let the respondents to file supplementary affidavit to the effect:- (i) As to whether Annexure R-IV, dated 08.03.2013, has been uniformly implemented by the respondents in case of all the similarly situated workmen as the present petitioners. (ii) Whether the recovery has been effected by the respondents on the basis of above Annexure from all those workmen to whom complete arrears in excess of three years had been released. (iii) Whether the payment of arrears has been restricted to three years even in cases of those workmen where computation had been finalized and orders had been passed prior to issuance of Annexure R-IV, dated 08.03.2013. Supplementary affidavit be filed within four weeks. List thereafter.” In compliance thereto, the respondents had filed supplementary affidavit on 10.07.2025 stating therein that release of arrears on account of conferment of work charge status, has been uniformly released by the respondents-Department. As per this affidavit, recovery notices have been issued to all those workmen, to whom arrears have been released in excess of three years, however, no recovery could be actually been effected till date on account of stay orders having been passed against the recovery orders. 3. It is not in dispute that conferment of work charge status and release of consequent arrears are now governed by State of 4 Himachal Pradesh Vs. Surajmani & Anr.4 Relevant portion thereof is extracted hereinafter: - “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.” In view of authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Surajmani4, the respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners afresh for release of arrears in their favour, in accordance with law and keeping in view the decision rendered in Surajmani4. This exercise be carried out within four weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. 4 Civil Appeal No. 1595/2025 decided a/w connected matters on 06.02.2025 5 The writ petition to stand disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 10th September, 2025(rohit)