IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10792 of 2025 Decided on: 15th July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pitamber Lal Sharma …..Petitioner Versus H.P. State Electricity Board Limited and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Piyush Rathore, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Piyush Rathore, learned Standing Counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Considering the nature of the order impugned in this petition and the order being passed hereinafter, reply of the petition is not required to be called from the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Petitioner feels aggrieved against the order dated 09.03.2021 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.2, rejecting his representation for conferring him work charge status w.e.f. March, 2003. 3. Facts:- 3(i). In terms of the impugned order and according to the respondents, petitioner was engaged in the respondent- Board as Beldar on daily wage basis on and w.e.f. 26.02.1996. He worked as such upto 25.09.1997. His services were thereafter terminated. Feeling aggrieved against termination of his services, petitioner preferred Reference No.214/2003 before the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala. The reference was decided on 01.06.2010 with direction to the respondent-Board to re-engage the petitioner forthwith alongwith seniority and continuity in service from the date of his termination. 3(ii). Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and another Versus Pitamber Lal Sharma and another2 instituted by the respondent-Board against the award passed by the learned Labour Court was dismissed on 23.12.2010. Petitioner was accordingly re-engaged on daily wage basis 2 CWP No.6337 of 2010, decided alongwith connected matters on 23.12.2010 3 as Beldar on 03.03.2011. His services were brought on work charge cadre vide letter dated 03.09.2011 with prospective effect. 3(iii). Petitioner preferred representation to the respondents for conferring him work charge status from a retrospective date. Hearing no response from the respondents, CWP No.4110 of 2019 was instituted by the petitioner. The said writ petition was disposed of on 01.01.2020 with direction to the respondents to decide petitioner’s representation. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the impugned order was passed on 09.03.2021, observing that the petitioner was re-engaged on and w.e.f. 03.03.2011 on daily wage basis as Beldar. That the respondents have justly brought his services on work charge cadre on and w.e.f. 08.01.2007 on notional basis, when services of his juniors/counterparts were brought on work charge cadre. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. Para 3 of the impugned order gives out the reason for rejecting petitioner’s prayer for according him work charge status w.e.f. March, 2003. The sole reason offered by the respondents for rejecting the representation of the petitioner, seeking conferment of work charge status 4 from the retrospective date only on the ground that petitioner’s juniors/counterparts were brought on work charge cadre w.e.f. 08.01.2007, is not justified. Admittedly, petitioner’s termination from service w.e.f. 25.09.1997 was set aside by the learned Labour Court under award dated 01.06.2010. In terms of the said award, petitioner was ordered to be “re-engaged forthwith alongwith continuity in service and seniority from the date of his termination except back wages”. The aforesaid award attained finality after dismissal of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and another Versus Pitamber Lal Sharma and another2. Thus, in terms of the award dated 01.06.2010 passed by the learned Labour Court, petitioner’s seniority is to be reckoned w.e.f. 31.12.1997 (date of petitioner’s termination as mentioned in the impugned award). His case for conferment of work charge status is then required to be decided in light of the decision rendered in State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Surajmani & Anr.3 read with The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Nanak Chand & Ors.4. Accordingly, the stand taken by the respondents that petitioner’s juniors/counterparts were conferred work 3 Civil appeal No. 1595 of 2025, decided on 06.02.2025 4 SLP(C) Nos.10719-10720/2025, decided on 16.04.2025 5 charge status w.e.f. 08.01.2007 is no ground to deny work charge status to the petitioner from the due date. 5. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 09.03.2021 (Annexure P-5) is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for conferment of work charge status upon him keeping in view the award dated 01.06.2010 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala as also the decisions rendered in Surajmani3 & Nanak Chand4 and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed, be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 15, 2025 Judge Mukesh