2026:HHC:27972 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.90 of 2019 Decided on: 08.07.2026 Charan Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioners by way of present petition have prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the respondents Department may kindly be directed to give the work charge status/regularization to the applicant with all consequential benefits as Beldar with effect from 1999 with interest @ 9% per annum, when he completed his 8 years services with 240 days as per the policy of the State Government or after the completion of 10 years regular services as per Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment Mool Raj Upadhaya case and as per ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court on 28-07-2010 in Rakesh Kumar case. (ii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to grant the pension to the applicant after 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:27972 considering his case for grant of work charge status with effect from 1999, including seniority, pay fixation etc.” 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioners were appointed as Class-IV employees on Daily Wage Basis in the year 1999. Their services were regularized vide office order dated 08.02.2013 (Annexure A- 1) i.e. after putting more than 23 years of service. The grievance of the petitioners as highlighted in the petition is that, they were entitled to confer the work charge status after completion of eight years regular service with 240 days in each calendar year, but they were not conferred the work charge status. The said action on the part of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and bad in the eyes of law. 3. It has also been averred that in similar circumstances, the claim of other similar situate persons has been rejected by the respondents-Department on the ground that there is no work charge establishment in the respondent-Department. It has further been averred that the respondents being model employer cannot be expected to give discriminatory treatment to its employees. It has further been averred that the State Government has conferred the work charge status to similar situate persons 3 2026:HHC:27972 and denying the same to the petitioners is violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and thus prayed for direction to the respondents to confer work charge status upon the petitioners after completion of eight years of service with all consequential benefits. 4. The respondents filed reply to the petition and not disputed the fact that the petitioners were engaged in the Department as Class-IV employees on Daily Wage Basis in the year 1991. It has been averred that the policy to regularize the daily waged Class-IV employees was introduced in the year 2009 and accordingly the services of the daily waged Class-IV employees were regularized in February, 2009, as per the vacancies available. Prior to this, there was no policy to regulate daily waged Class-IV employees and hence the contention raised by the petitioners that their services be regularized with effect from 1999 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The services of the petitioners were not regularized in the year 2009 for the reason that at that time they were junior to those eligible incumbents, whose services were regularized. However, the services of the petitioners were regularized in the year 2013, as per the approval of the competent 4 2026:HHC:27972 authority. It has also been averred that the respondents- Department had no work charge establishment and hence the claim of the petitioners regarding grant of work charge status is not applicable to them. It has also been averred that the work charge establishment cannot be made applicable to any daily waged employee of the State Government-Department, which does not have work charge establishment. It has further been submitted that as per the judgment dated 28.07.2010, passed in CWP No.2735 of 2010, titled, Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors., along with connected matters, it has been held that question of conferment of work charge status does not arise in case the establishment ceases to be a work charge establishment. This Court, vide order dated 13.03.2020, had directed the respondents to explain and clarify as to why regularization policy as framed by the State was not applicable to the Ayurveda Department prior to 2009, despite the fact that unlike Boards and Corporation, Ayurveda is a Department of the State Government itself. In sequel to the direction passed by the Court, the respondents filed an affidavit and averred that prior to 2009, as per the existing policy of the personnel 5 2026:HHC:27972 Department, a letter was issued on 27.02.2004, wherein a provision was made that all the part time Class-IV employees, who have completed 10 years of continuous service as on 31.12.2003 in all Departments, will be converted into daily wagers except those in Education and Ayurveda Department. It has further been averred that provisions were made in Recruitment and Promotion Rules of Peons and Sweepers for the first time in the Department of Ayurveda, which were notified on 31.12.1998. As per the amended rules, 50% recruitment was to be made by direct recruitment and 50% by appointment from amongst the wholly paid daily waged Class-IV workers of the Department, who possess at least 10 years’ service having 240 days in each calendar year, failing which by appointment from amongst the Departmental working part- time workers who also possess at least 10 years’ service having 240 days in each calendar year, failing which by direct recruitment. The other provisions are also inserted, but the same are not relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the dispute in the present lis. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 6 2026:HHC:27972 6. The plea taken by the respondents that the work charge establishment was not available in the respondents- Department, cannot be countenanced, in view of the judgment passed by this Court on 10.05.2018 in CWP No.3111 of 2016, titled, State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Ashwani Kumar, which judgment has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been 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. The said judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court was assailed by the State of Himachal Pradesh before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the said judgment 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 7 2026:HHC:27972 and another. 7. The plea taken by the respondents that the work charge establishment is not available in the respondents- Department is rejected, in view of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the judgment passed in Surajmani’s case (supra), wherein it has been held that irrespective of non-work charge establishment, the work charge status has to be conferred, which judgment has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and thus the petitioners are entitled to confer the work charge status, immediately after completion of eight years’ service. 8. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for conferment of work charge status, strictly in terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surajmani’s case (supra), within a period of three months from today. The petitioners shall be granted all terminal benefits, strictly as per judgment in Surajmani’s case (supra). In case all the terminal benefits are not released in favour of the petitioners within three months from today, the respondents shall pay interest @6% per annum on the arrears from today, till actual payment. No order as to costs. 8 2026:HHC:27972 Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 08 th July , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge