2026:HHC:25624 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.2125 of 2019 Date of Decision: 29.06.2026. Narayan Dutt ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. N.D. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (oral) By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(i). A writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondent to count seniority of the petitioner w.e.f 1998 i.e. from the date of his initial engagement as daily wage Beldar. (ii) A writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner w.e.f.2004 instead of 05.03.2012 when it became due to the petitioner as per policy of the respondents with all consequential benefits of pay, seniority, arrears etc.” 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.2026:HHC:25624 2. The facts as emerge from pleadings are that the petitioner was engaged as Beldar in the respondent-Department in the year 1997, but he did not complete 240 days in each Calendar year till 2002. His services were regularized as per office order dated 3rd March 2012 (Annexure P-1) on the post of Beldar in the pay scale of pay band 4900- 10680+1300 Grade Pay. The petitioner has sought writ of mandamus directing the respondents to count his seniority from the date of his initial engagement as Beldar in the year 1998 and thereafter regularize his services as per the policy of the State government. 3. The respondents filed reply to the petition and averred that the petitioner did not complete 240 days in each calendar year since 1997. In the affidavit dated 25.07.2023 filed in compliance with the directions given by the Court on 12.06.2023, it has been averred that the petitioner had completed only 77 days in the year 1997, 229 days in the year 1998, 233 days in the year 1999, 227 days in the year 2000, 228 days in the year 2001 and 175 days in the year 2002. Thereafter, from the year 2003, the petitioner had completed 240 days in each calendar year and also placed on record the man-days chart (Annexure R-1). 4. A perusal of the man-days chart reveals that the petitioner had completed 240 days in each calendar year since 2003. 5. I have heard Mr. N.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sumit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for 3.2026:HHC:25624 the respondents and also gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on record. 6. From the facts as narrated above, it is crystal clear that the petitioner did not complete 240 days in each Calendar year till 2002 and thus, in terms of the policy of the State Government, he is not entitled to be considered for regularization from the year 1997. However, as per the man-days chart as appended by the respondent-State with the affidavit dated 25.07.2023 filed by the Superintending Engineer, Jal Shakti Circle, Kasumpti, Shimla-9, the petitioner had completed 240 days in each Calendar year from the year 2003 onwards. 7. Once the petitioner had completed 240 days in each calendar year from the year 2003 onwards, he was entitled for conferment of work charge status, if not regularization. The petitioner had completed 8 years of service with 240 days in each calendar year since 2003 till 31.12.2010 and thus, he was entitled to be conferred the work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2011, if not to be regularized after completion of 8 years of service in terms of the policy of the State Government. Therefore, the action on the part of the respondents- Department to deny the petitioner work charge status upon completion of 8 years of service with 240 days in each calendar year is illegal and arbitrary. In case the petitioner is conferred the work charge status immediately after completion of eight years of service with 240 days in each calendar year, it would be helpful for him to get the pension since 4.2026:HHC:25624 the period after conferment of work charge status has to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The petitioner is thus, held entitled to work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2011 on notional basis only. 8. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and the respondents shall confer the work charge status upon the petitioner after completion of eight years’ service w.e.f. 01.01.2011 notionally and the period after 01.01.2011 will be counted for the purpose of fixation of pensionary benefits only. Arrears of pension, if any, shall be paid to the petitioner within three months from today. The petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. 9. Pending miscellaneous application (s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Judge June 29, 2026 (meera)