2026:HHC:24405 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No.1584 of 2019 Decided on: 22 nd June, 2026 __________________________________________________________________ Bhuri Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents ___________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Rai and Ms. Rajni Gandhi, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner by way of present petition has mainly prayed for directions to the respondents to implement the award dated 01.10.2005, passed by Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P. (for short “Labour Court”) in Reference No.67/2004, titled, Bhuri Singh vs. Divisional Forest Officer and another. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Beldar in the year 1987. However, his services were terminated in the year 1992. He was again re-appointed in the year 1997 and again his services were terminated in the year 2000. Since the services of the petitioner were terminated without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he had raised the demand for his reinstatement and when nothing was done, the State Government had made a reference for adjudication before the Labour Court, who vide award dated 01.10.2005 (Annexure A-1), had held that the disengagement of the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.08.2000 is violative of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and, therefore, ordered for re-instatement on the same terms and conditions, on which he was working prior to his dis-engagement w.e.f. 01.08.2000 with all consequential service benefits. The petitioner was held entitled for back wages to the extent of 25%. The relevant para of the award reads as under:- 3 “28. In view of my findings on above issues, since the petitioner was dis-engaged from service w.e.f. 1.8.2000 is held to be violative of the Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Act and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for his re-instatement on the same terms and conditions in which he was working prior to his illegal dis-engagement w.e.f. 1.8.2000 with all consequential service benefits. The petitioner is also entitled for back wages to the extent of 25%. The respondents are directed to re-engage the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of announcement of this award and make the payment of back wages, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled for full wages after the expiry of said period and the respondent shall also be liable to pay penal interest on the arrears of 25% back wages at the rate of 9% per annum, calculating the same on year to year basis. The Forest Department may, if feel it appropriate, fix responsibility on the erring officials who failed to maintain the proper seniority list of the daily wagers engaged in the division so as to strictly follow the principle of dis-engagement as per the settled rule of First come Last go and also for re-engagement of daily wagers as enunciated under Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act and, if may deem appropriate, recover the arrears payable to the petitioner from such erring officials. The reference is answered accordingly.” 3. The respondents-State feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court had preferred the writ petition bearing CWP No.383 of 2006, titled, State of H.P. and another vs. Bhuri Singh, which came to be dismissed on 26.10.2007. The respondents were directed to reinstate the 4 petitioner within a period of eight weeks with all consequential benefits, as per award dated 01.10.2005. 4. After the dismissal of the writ petition, the services of the petitioner were regularized on the post of Chowkidar, vide office order dated 13.09.2012 (Annexure P/3), since he had completed 8 years of service with requisite number of days in each year as on 31.03.2008. 5. Since the petitioner was not granted the monetary benefits from the year 2008, when his services were to be regularized in terms of award dated 01.10.2005 passed by the Labour Court, he has approached the Court by present petition, seeking directions to the respondents to implement the award dated 01.10.2005 and regularize his services from the date when the persons juniors to him were regularized. 6. It has been averred in the petition that though as per the award, the petitioner was to be reinstated on the same terms within a period of 3 months from the date of pronouncement of the award, but the respondents instead of 5 complying with the judgment had assailed the same by way of writ petition, which was dismissed on 26.10.2007. It has further been averred that the petitioner was to be regularized from the date when the persons junior to him were regularized. The action on the part of the respondents in denying the relief to the petitioner is wrong and illegal. 7. The respondents filed reply to the petition and averred that the entire benefits as per the judgment passed in the petition have been released in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has been paid Rs.37,043/- on account of 25% back wages and 9% interest on 25% back wages per annum by depositing the above amount with the Registry of the Court. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.83,931/- on account of the remaining 75% back wages has been paid to him. The case of the petitioner for seeking regularization started during the year 2008 as per the Government Policy dated 09.09.2008 and keeping in view the availability of the post and approval of the Government, his services have been regularized against the 6 post of Chowkidar, as per appointment order dated 13.09.2012. 8. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply and controverted the averments made therein. 9. As per order dated 27.11.2025, passed by the Court, the respondents have filed supplementary affidavit and have placed on record the Mandays Chart from the years 1998 to 2000. The respondents have also placed on record the copy of order dated 22.12.2025. A perusal of order dated 22.12.2025 reveals that the petitioner has now been granted the work charge status w.e.f. 01.04.2008 i.e. immediately after completion of 8 years of daily wage service with minimum of 240 days in each calendar year considering his continuity in service w.e.f. February 2000. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 11. No doubt, as per award dated 01.10.2005, passed by the Labour Court, the respondents were directed to re- 7 engage the petitioner within a period of 3 months from the date of pronouncement of the award. However, the respondents-State had challenged the award by preferring writ petition, which came to be dismissed on 26.10.2007 and there was an interim order dated 17.10.2006 passed by the Court. After dismissal of the writ petition, the Court had directed the respondents to re-instate the petitioner within a period of 8 weeks from the date of passing the judgment with all consequential benefits, as directed by the Labour Court vide award dated 01.10.2005. 12. The respondents in terms of the policy, which was in vogue in the year 2008 had to regularize the services of the petitioner after completion of 8 years of service. However, his services were regularized as per order dated 13.09.2012 without regularizing his services from back date i.e. 01.04.2008. Since, this Court had dismissed the writ petition preferred by the respondents-State and had directed the respondents to implement the directions within 8 weeks from 8 26.10.2007, in terms of the award dated 01.10.2005 passed by the Labour Court, the respondents were under obligation to regularize the services of the petitioner immediately after completion of eight years, as per policy dated 09.09.2008 and pay him all monetary benefits, especially when he had completed 8 years of service as on 31.03.2008 specifically mentioned in regularization order dated 13.09.2012 (Annexure P-3). 13. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that since the petitioner has been granted the work charge status in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.23016 of 2023, titled, The State of H.P. and others vs. Surajmani and Another, the petitioner is not entitled to any further relief. However, the said judgment is not attracted to the facts of present case for the simple reason that the same talks about conferring the work charge status on an employee after 9 completion of 8 years of service and thus the Court has come to the conclusion that the said benefit has to be granted on notional basis. 14. In the present case, the petitioner had challenged the order terminating his services and the Labour Court had passed an award on 01.10.2005, when the order of dis- engagement of his services w.e.f. 01.08.2000 was held to be violative of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said award was assailed by the respondents- State by preferring the writ petition, which was dismissed on 26.10.2007. Thereafter, the respondents slept over the matter for nearly 5 years and the services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 13.09.2012 (Annexure P/3) and thus the petitioner is entitled to the wages of the post of Chowkidar w.e.f. 01.04.2008 since his services ought to have been regularized from the said date, when he had fulfilled the requisite criteria of 8 years of service with requisite number of days in each year as on 31.03.2008. So far as the judgment 10 passed in Surajmani’s case (supra) is concerned, that is with respect to grant of conferment of work charge status. 15. As already noticed above, in the present case, the respondents-State did not assail the order passed by the learned Single Judge, when the award passed by the Labour Court was affirmed. Rather, in compliance with the directions given in the award, the respondents have regularized services of the petitioner on 13.09.2012. Thus, the petitioner is held entitled to the salary w.e.f. 01.04.2008 on the post of Chowkidar with all consequential beenfits. 16. Though, the petitioner has pleaded in the petition that he had been serving with the respondents since 1987, but keeping in view the fact that he was a casual labour w.e.f. 21.12.1987 to 1991 and thereafter was again re-engaged in the year 1998 and worked for 90 days and in the year 1999 for 97 days and in the year 2000 for a period of 102 days, he is not entitled to count his daily wage services prior to February 2000, when the respondents have considered the 11 period from the said date in terms of award passed by the Labour Court, which has attained finality. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, titled, Sunder Singh vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 08.03.2018, it has been held that 5 years of daily wage service is to be treated as 1 year service and, if an employee completes 10 years service on daily wage basis and thereafter 6 years regular service, he shall be entitled for pension. Total period of service including daily wage service should be 8 years. Therefore, while defraying the pensionary benefits, the period of daily wage service rendered by the petitioner shall also be considered w.e.f. February 2000 till 31.03.2008 and thereafter the regular service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2008 till his retirement. 17. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner as Chowkidar after completion of 8 years’ service 12 w.e.f. 01.04.2008 with all consequential benefits. The period of daily wage basis rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. February 2000 till his regularization be considered for pension in view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh’s case (supra). 18. The petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 22 nd June, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge