2026:HHC:11508 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12265 of 2024 Decided on: 06.04.2026 Shri Thakur Dass … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) That the impugned order dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by the respondent No. 3-DFO, Nachan Forest Division, Gohar may kindly be quashed and set aside being non-speaking, unreasoned, arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, void ab-initio, non-est & violative of the judgment dated 23.04.2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 1044 of 2015 titled as Jai Singh vs. State of HP & others. as well as regularization policy framed by the Government of HP vide Circular dated 18.06.2007 (Annexure P-6), by issuing writ of Certiorari; (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f; 01.01.2006 instead 13.09.2012 with all consequential benefits and 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:11508 accordingly, reckon total qualifying service of the petitioner as 21 years taking into consideration from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2021 for the purpose of grant of pension and pensionary benefits etc. and justice be done. (iii) That the respondents may further be directed to grant pension, commuted value of pension, gratuity & leave encashment etc. in pursuance of regularization of services of the petitioner w.e.f; 01.01.2006 and accordingly, release entire due and admissible arrears to him alongwith interest @9% per annum and justice be done.” 2. The issue that now remains in this case is in a very narrow compass. As urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner, the limited prayer of the petitioner is that order dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-5), in terms whereof, the case of the petitioner for conferment of regularization/work charge status from due date has been rejected, be quashed and set aside and direction be issued to the respondents to confer work charge status to the petitioner post completion of eight years of service with 240 days in each calendar year from the date of initial engagement. 3. Learned Counsel has taken the Court through order dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) and submitted that as per the respondents, the petitioner has completed minimum 240 days in each calendar year since the year 1998. Accordingly, he submitted that the petitioner has a right to be conferred work charge status upon completion of eight years of service with consequential 3 2026:HHC:11508 benefits. He submitted that denial thereof is arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned Counsel also submitted that as per the judgment in CWP No. 1044 of 2015 titled as Jai Singh vs. State of HP & others (Annexure P-1), Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court was pleased to order the conferment of work charge status to a similarly situated person and denial of the same to the petitioner by simply saying that the petitioner was a Class-IV employee and not a Class-III employee does not suffice the purpose. He submitted that it is the principle of law which has been settled by this Court from time to time that a daily wager who has put in more than 240 days in each calendar year has a right to be conferred work charge status post completion of eight years of service. Accordingly, he prayed that the present petition be disposed of by directing the respondents to confer work charge status upon the petitioner after eight years post completion of 240 days in each calendar year as from the year 1998. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner has not completed 240 days in the years 2002 and 2005, as is mentioned in the reply, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as is being prayed for by him. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that each case has to be decided on its own merit and herein the petitioner was conferred regularization as from the due date, i.e. the year 2012, thus, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 4 2026:HHC:11508 5. In rebuttal, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Para-6 of the reply on merit filed by the respondents and submitted that the petitioner has already been granted seniority and continuity during the years 2002 and 2005 and in light of the fact that this is the own admission of the State Government, therefore, now they cannot harp on the fact that the petitioner did not have the the requisite number of days in the years 2002 and 2005. Learned Counsel also submitted that even if the contention of the State is to be believed that regularization is to be conferred as and when vacancies or posts become available, then also the petitioner is at least entitled for conferment of work charge status after completion of eight years as from the year 1998. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 7. The respective submissions of the parties as far as chronological narration of facts is concerned, are same and similar. Neither the petitioner is claiming anything prior to the year 1998, nor the State is disputing that as from the year 1998, the petitioner completed 240 days in each calendar year as the shortage that was therein the years 2002 and 2005 stands condoned by the State. This Court concurs with the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that right of regularization can not be claimed as a 5 2026:HHC:11508 matter of right upon completion of eight years of service, but then the petitioner at least has the right of conferment of work charge status post completion of eight years of service till the date of his regularization. However, this right cannot be denied to the petitioner. In the present case, the State is confusing itself between regularization and work charge status without appreciating that even if the petitioner is not entitled for regularization after completion of eight years of service for want of vacancy, he is entitled for conferment of work charge status after completion of eight years of service as from the year 1998. Incidently, this now is the limited prayer of the petitioner as was urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner. The right of a daily wager of being conferred work charge status recently also stands crystallized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, titled The State of Himachal Pradesh and others Versus Surajmani and another, on 06.02.2025, in which judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court by referring to its earlier judgments has again reiterated that a daily wager with 240 days service in each year is entitled for conferment of work charge status after completion of 8 years. 8. Accordingly, in light of above discussion, this petition is allowed and order dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to confer the work charge status upon the petitioner post completion of eight years of service 6 2026:HHC:11508 as from the year 1998. In light of the fact that the petitioner has been conferred regularization from the year 2012, the conferment of work charge status and benefits flowing therefrom including for pensionary benefits shall be in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surajmani’s case (supra). 9. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 06, 2026 (Rishi)