( 2026:HHC:16445 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPOA No.5367 of 2019 Decided on: 12th May, 2026 Prithi Singh .......Petitioner versus Managing Director, Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation and another. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr.P.K. Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Abhishek Nagta, Advocate. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge(Oral) The petitioner, by way of present petition, has sought directions to the respondents to regularize/confer work-charge status upon him on completion of 10 years of daily wage services with all consequential benefits. 2. The facts, as emerge from the pleadings, are that the petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar on daily wage basis with the respondent-Corporation in the year 1989. However, later on, his services were dis-engaged w.e.f. 01.09.1997. 3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order of his disengagement had raised the dispute, which came to 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2026:HHC:16445 ) 2 be referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Dharamshala, who had passed the award on 04.06.2010, thereby holding that the respondents had not followed the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thus, ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner with 50% back wages and continuity in seniority. 4. The respondents feeling aggrieved by the award dated 04.06.2010, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, had approached this Court by way of CWP No.6357 of 2010, titled, The Divisional Manager, Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation vs. The Principal Secretary and others, which came to be dismissed on 06.12.2011 holding that neither there is any infirmity nor illegality in the award dated 04.06.2010. 5. However, still the respondent-Corporation feeling aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court preferred an appeal before this Court, which came to be dismissed, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once the claim of the petitioner has been adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and his retrenchment w.e.f. 01.09.1997 was held to be void, the ( 2026:HHC:16445 ) 3 petitioner is entitled to the conferment of work-charge status upon him, taking his initial date of appointment in the year 1989. The petitioner has averred in the petition that the action on the part of the respondents in not conferring the work charge status upon him is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents have not treated the petitioner similarly as that of others and they have regularized the services of many employees who were working against the non-sanctioned posts. 6. The respondent-Corporation filed reply to the petition and averred that the replying respondent is an agent of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The respondent- Corporation is adopting the policies of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, since its inception and the service benefits whatever attached to the employees in the Government Department are made applicable to the employees of the respondent-Corporation through its own service bye-laws. However, it has been pleaded that there is no category of work charge. It has been averred that the services of the petitioner along-with other daily waged employees have been regularized as Peon. ( 2026:HHC:16445 ) 4 7. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents and controverted the averments made in the reply. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged as daily wager during the year 1989. As per judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.2735 of 2010, titled, Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P and others alongwith connected matters, it has been held that there is an obligation cast upon the department to consider regularization of daily wage workers as per policy as well as the Department is bound to confer work charge status upon the daily wage workers, satisfying the required condition of daily wage services. The respondent-Corporation has admitted in the reply that the policies framed by the State Government are being followed by it. Once the respondent-Corporation is following the policy decision of the State Government, it was imperative upon it to confer work charge status upon the petitioner after completion of 10 years of daily wage services. 10. This Court in CWP No.3111 of 2016, titled, State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Ashwani Kumar, ( 2026:HHC:16445 ) 5 which judgment has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has held that the cessation of work charge establishment, if any, has to do nothing with conferment of work charge status and work charge establishment is not a pre-requisite for conferment of work charge status. Similarly, in another judgment passed by this Court in LPA No.165 of 2021, titled, State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and another, decided on 12.01.2023, it has been held that the work charge status was to be conferred upon the employees from the date they had completed eight years of service on daily wage basis. This judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, titled, The State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and another. Since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the judgment passed by this Court in Surajmani’s case (supra), the present petition deserves to be allowed, with a direction to the respondent-Corporation to consider the claim of the petitioner to confer work charge status upon him, in terms of judgment in Surajmani’s case. 11. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the ( 2026:HHC:16445 ) 6 petitioner for conferment of work charge status, strictly in terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, titled, The State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and another within a period of three months from today. The petitioner shall be granted terminal benefits, strictly as per judgment in Surajmani’s case. In case terminal benefits are not released in his favour within three months from today, the respondents shall pay interest @6% per annum on the arrears. 12. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any. ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 12th May, 2026 Judge (naveen)