2026:HHC:33038 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.    : 1084 of 2025 Decided on  :      05.08.2026 Pratap Chand …Petitioner Versus Ashish Singhmar & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner       :  Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents   : Mr. Mohinder   Zharaick,   Additional Advocate   General   with   Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioner­Pratap   Chand   has   filed   the   present contempt petition, under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, with a prayer to punish the respondents for willful violation of the judgment dated 30.07.2024, passed by this Court in CWPOA No.7515 of 2020, titled as Pratap Chand versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others. 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:33038 2. The aforesaid writ petition has been allowed by this Court, by granting the following relief:­ “16. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances and also considering  the  claim  of  petitioner  for similar  treatment   like  Bimla   Devi,   respondents­ State   is   directed   to   give   daily   wager   status   to petitioner   from   the   date   when   he   completed   10 years of continuous service as Part­Time Worker i.e. from 04.02.2010 instead of 08.08.2012 and also to consider him for regularization from the date of completion of 8 years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year and in case, post is not available, then  to  confer  work   charge  status  on completion   of   8   years   of   service   with   all consequential benefits. It is further clarified that in   case   Bimla   Devi   has   been   regularized   after completion of 7  years daily waged  service,  then petitioner shall also be given similar treatment.” 3. Along with the petition, copy of Office Order dated 06.10.2025, has also been annexed, according to which, the Department concerned has given the daily wager status to petitioner Pratap Chand on 03.02.2010 and work charge status on 03.02.2018. 4. According to the petitioner, the judgment has not been complied with, as after the lapse of more than 10 months, the monitory benefits have not been given to him. 3 2026:HHC:33038 5. The relief to the petitioner, in the present case, has been given on the basis of the decision, rendered by this Court in CWP No. 2806 of 2014, titled as Bimla Devi versus State of H.P. 6. When  put   to  notice,  the  respondents  have   filed compliance affidavit, disclosing therein that the judgment, in question, has also been complied with, as after completion of 10 years of service, as part time worker, daily wager status has   been   given   to   him,   on   03.02.2010,   in   terms   of   the directions issued by this Court in Bimla Devi’s case supra. 7. Since,   no   vacancy   was   available   in   the Department,   as   such,   the   work   charge   status   has   been conferred upon him, in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, arising out of SLP (C) No.23016 of 2023, titled as State of H.P. & Others versus Surajmani and Others. 8. So far as the benefits, for which, the petitioner is entitled to, upon conferment of work charge status, the same 4 2026:HHC:33038 have been granted notionally, in terms of the judgment in Surajmani’s case supra. 9. It is the further case of the respondents that Bimla Devi was regularized, after completion of eight years and three months, as daily wager, and not after seven years. Hence, a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition. 10. Along with reply, copy of the Office Order dated 13.11.2025, has also been annexed, by virtue of which, the petitioner   was   conferred   with   the   work   charge   status   on 03.02.2018. In the order itself, it has been mentioned that the benefits, consequent upon conferment of work charge status, shall be notional, in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surajmani’s case supra. 11. Respondents   have   also   annexed   with  the   reply/ compliance   report,   the   copy   of   judgment   of   this   Court   in Bimla Devi’s case supra. 12. In   the   personal   affidavit   of   respondent   No.4, similar stand has been taken. Respondents, vide order dated 17.11.2025, have also regularized the services of the petitioner 5 2026:HHC:33038 w.e.f. 03.02.2018 and thereafter, his pay has been fixed as Rs.18,000/­ as on 03.02.2018, by granting benefits, on notional basis. Vide Office Order dated 12.05.2026, the same has been re­fixed   as   Rs.18,000/­,   w.e.f.   03.02.2018   and   he   has   been granted pay scale of Level­1, Cell­1. 13. Respondents, in the present case, have relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Surajmani’s case supra,   in   which,   it   has   categorically   been   held   that   the judgment in Surajmani’s case is judgment in rem.  Relevant paragraphs 10 to 12, of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:­ 10. For the cumulative reasons aforestated, we are of the considered view that the dicta laid down by this Court vide order dated 22.07.2019 in Ashwani Kumar’s   (Supra)   case   which   is   based   on   the judgment of  Mool Raj Upadhyaya  (Supra) holds the   field   and   would   also   be   applicable   to   the Respondents   herein   who   had   approached   the Tribunal or the High Court seeking similar relief. As   such,   the   Respondents   shall   be   entitled   for grant   of   ‘work­charged’   status   from   the   date   of completion of 8 years of service. However, we hold that the relief in the present appeals will be limited to notional benefits as explained in paragraph 3 and 4 of Ashwani Kumar’s (Supra) case in Civil Appeal No(s). 5753 of 2019 and the present appeals stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. 11. We also make it explicitly clear that the State in its endeavour of implementing the orders of the 6 2026:HHC:33038 Tribunal, High Court or this Court, if having paid the amounts in excess, would be at liberty to take such steps as it deems fit without insisting for one time recovery. 12. It is further underscored that this judgment would necessarily be a judgment in rem and the State   shall   hence   forth   not   take   recourse   to employing   personnel   as   daily   wagers   but   shall make appointments only in accordance with law, as enumerated in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1]” 14. In view of the above discussion, no case, for taking action   against   the   respondents,   is   made   out.   As   such,   the present petition is dismissed.  Notice discharged. 15. However,   the   petitioner   is   at   liberty   to   avail appropriate remedy, in accordance with law, for redressal of his surviving grievances, if any, if so advised. ( Virender Singh ) August 05, 2026( ps ) Judge