2026:HHC:6196 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No.2072 of 2020 Decided on: 01.01.2026 ________________________________________________________ Goverdhan Dass ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondents & Others Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. No. For the petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar God, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2-State. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ranjan Sharma, Judge [Oral] Petitioner, Goverdhan Dass, had initially filed an Original Application i.e. OA No 2266 of 2017 before Learned Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal and upon abolition of the Tribunal, the same was transferred to this Court as CWPOA No.2072 of 2020, seeking the following relief(s): “7(a). That the present OA may kindly be allowed and directing the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2026:HHC:6196 - 2 - respondents to give regularization to the applicant with all consequential benefits as per ratio laid down in CWP No. 2735 of t 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar Versus State of H.P. and others, along with connected matters, which was decided on 28.7.2010 by Hon'ble high court of H.P and decision rendered by the Apex Court in Special leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s) 21939-22009/2011, titled as State of H.P. & Others versus Som Nath & Others, which was decided on 7.5.2013 as per the 8 years' policy, as and when applicant has completed 8 years of service with 240 days since the applicant with all consequential benefits with up to date was engaged, interest, seniority, arrears of pay, Pension, promotion etc. 7(b). That the direction be given to respondents to give regularization to the applicants, when he has completed 8 years of service, as has been done by the respondent department in the case of similarly situated persons.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Case as set up by Learned Counsel is that the petitioner was engaged as daily wage Beldar on 2026:HHC:6196 - 3 - 01.05.1986 with Nagar Parishad, Ghumarwin and based on the continuous service rendered w.e.f. 1995 as per the mandays vide Annexure A-2, his services were regularized on 07.09.2007 w.e.f. 31.03.2006 after a delay of 12 years. The pleadings indicate that the petitioner has based a claim for work charge status on the basis of judgment of this Court in Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. & Others [CWP No.2735 of 2010, decided on 28.07.2010] [Annexure A-3]. It is averred that though the petitioner stands regularized after 11 years but the action of the respondents in denying retrospective regularization/work charge status from the date of completion of 08 years of continuous service has resulted in depriving the petitioner of higher status, higher pay fixation and consequential benefits with all consequential benefits. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT: 3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 31.05.2017, Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed Reply-Affidavit dated 26.07.2017 of Director Urban Development, Himachal Pradesh. 2026:HHC:6196 - 4 - 3(i). Perusal of the Reply-Affidavit indicates that petitioner was engaged as Beldar on daily wage basis in May 1986 in Municipal Council Ghumarwin but infact he had rendered continuous service with 240 days from 1995 onwards as per Annexure A-3. Reply- Affidavit indicates that the petitioner was regularized on 18.08.2007 against the post created on 17.07.2007 and on receipt of approval on 18.08.2007 for filling these posts. It is averred that claim for retrospective regularization without their being a post as the new posts were created on 17.07.2007 is not tenable. 3(ii). So far as the claim for work charge status in terms of the judgment in the case of Rakesh Kumar (supra) is concerned, the stand of the official respondents is that since the Nagar Parishad, Ghumarwin does not have a work charge establishment and therefore, work charge status cannot be granted to the petitioner. NO REPLY BY RESPONDENT No.3: 4. Respondent No.3 has not filed any reply but Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, for Respondent 2026:HHC:6196 - 5 - No.3 states that the Reply filed by Respondents No. 1 & 2 is adopted and no separate reply is to be filed. DECLARATION OF LAW DURING PENDENCY OF WRIT PETITION: 5. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that though the claim of petitioner is for granting regularization from the date of completion of 08 years of daily waged service in terms of the mandate of this Court, in the case of Rakesh Kumar, but in fact, the judgement in the case of Rakesh Kumar (supra) relates to grant of work charge status from the date of completion of 08 years of continuous daily waged service. Learned Counsel further submits that subsequent developments originating from the declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs Surajmani & another, Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, decided on 06.02.2025, support the claim of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service. 6. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar God, Learned 2026:HHC:6196 - 6 - Counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Sumit Sharma, Learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2; and Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Learned Counsel for respondent No.3, and perused the material available on record. ANALYSIS: 7. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status, which is a lesser relief vis-à-vis the claim for regularization, needs to be accepted, for the following reasons:- ELIGIBILITY FOR WORK CHARGE STATUS UPON COMPLETION OF 08 YEARS CONTINUOUS DAILY WAGED SERVICE: 7(i). Material placed on record indicates that the petitioner was engaged as a daily wage Beldar in Nagar Parishad, Ghumarwin on 01.05.1986 and as per the mandays reflected in Annexure A-2, he rendered continuous service with 240 days from 1995 onwards. Though the petitioner came to be regularized on 07.09.2007 w.e.f. 31.03.2006, after rendering more than 12 years of continuous daily wage service, yet the benefit of conferment of work 2026:HHC:6196 - 7 - charge status upon completion of eight years of continuous daily wage service has not been granted. Accordingly, the petitioner became eligible for conferment of work charge status upon completion of eight years of continuous daily wage service w.e.f. 01.01.2003, however the said benefit has not been accorded to him till date. ENTITLEMENT FOR WORK CHARGE STATUS IN TERMS OF THE JUDGMENT IN CASE OF SURAJMANI : 7(ii). The issue as to whether the daily wagers working under the State were entitled for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous service stands adjudicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors vs Ashwani Kumar [Civil Appeal No 5753 of 2019, decided on 22.07.2019] and was reinforced in Civil Appeal No 1595 of 2025, State of Himachal Pradesh & Others versus Surajmani & Anr along with other connected matters, decided on 06.02.2025, in the following terms: “5. The workers who had been regularized in service in the Public Health 2026:HHC:6196 - 8 - Department under various schemes announced by the State Government from time to time but had not been granted the status of “work-charged” had approached the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 titled as Rakesh Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. which came to be disposed of on 28.07.2010 by opining as under: “6. The simple question is whether the delay defeats justice? In analyzing the above issue, it has to be borne in mind that the petitioners are only class IV workers (Beldars). The schemes announced by the Government clearly provided that the department concerned should consider the workmen concerned for bringing them on the work charged category. So, there is an obligation cast on the department to consider the cases of the daily waged workmen for conferment of the work-charged status, being on a work-charged establishment, on completion of the required number of years in terms of the policy. At the best, the petitioners can only be denied the interest on the eligible benefits and not the benefits as such, which accrued on them as per the policy and under which policy, the department was bound to confer the status, subject to the workmen satisfying the required conditions. 7. In the above circumstances, these Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case(s) of the petitioners herein for conferment of work charged status, subject to their eligibility in terms of the policy dated 3.4.2000 and as explained in 6.5.2000 policy, as 2026:HHC:6196 - 9 - extracted above. Needful in this regard shall be done within a period of three months from the date of production of the copy of this judgment by the respective petitioners. Needless to say that the question of conferment of work charged status does not arise in case the establishment ceases to be a work charged establishment and hence, the conferment of the status will not arise after the abolition of the work-charged status of the establishment.” 6. The aforesaid order came to be affirmed by this Court in Special leave Petition (Civil) No. 33570 of 2010 and all connected matters were disposed of on 15.01.2015. Later, certain workers who had been engaged on daily wage basis in Public Works Department of Himachal Pradesh, after having completed eight years of continuous service prayed for conferment of work-charged status by filing O.A. No. 412 of 2016 before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. Their prayer was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.06.2016. Upon challenging the same by the State in Civil Writ Petition No. 3111 of 2016 titled as State of H.P. and Ors. Vs. Sh. Ashwani Kumar the High Court, relying upon its judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 4489 of 2009 titled as Ravi Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Ors., decided on 14.12.2009, maintained the order of the Tribunal. The order of the High Court 2026:HHC:6196 - 10 - in Ashwani Kumar (Supra) has also been affirmed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019 titled as State of H.P. and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar by order dated 22.07.2019, wherein this Court observed as under: “3. We are not disturbing the finding of the Tribunal, which was affirmed by the High Court, with respect to the conferral of the status of the work charge from 01.01.2003. However, as regularization has been made only in the year 2006, obviously, notional benefit could have to be granted as the petition was initially filed in the year 2013. 4. Thus, we make the modification that the respondent would be entitled only for notional benefits of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly, with the aforesaid modification in the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court, the appeal is disposed of.” 7. In this factual scenario, when we consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, it would not detain us for too long to brush aside the contention of the learned senior counsel and learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Himachal Pradesh. Inasmuch as the issue involved in these appeals has been laid to rest by this Court in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (Supra). 2026:HHC:6196 - 11 - That apart, this Court, while examining a similar plea in Ashwani Kumar’s (Supra) case in Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019 disposed of on 22.07.2019, has specifically addressed this issue by arriving at a conclusion that the order of the Tribunal directing conferment of ‘work charge status’ on completion of eight (08) years of service, did not suffer from any infirmity and it was reiterated order of the Tribunal was just and proper. 8. However, in order to allay the apprehension of the State as expressed thereunder and to safeguard the interest of the State which otherwise would have burdened the exchequer with extra benefits being conferred on the employees who had not been regularly appointed, this Court has, as a succor to the State, restricted the claim or, in other words, modified the order of the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court by arriving at a conclusion that the petitioners / appellants therein would be entitled to the notional benefits of the order passed by the Tribunal and accordingly disposed of the said appeal. 9. It would not be out of context to refer at this juncture itself that the State, in its wisdom, having felt that the 2026:HHC:6196 - 12 - subsequent schemes having been formulated and implemented, would alter the situation and, therefore, order dated 12.04.1994 passed in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s (Supra) case has to be modified, had approached this Court by filing an Interlocutory Application being IA No. 3 in the year 2005 in the aforesaid Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case, i.e., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 787 of 1987. A perusal of the said application and the averments made thereunder would clearly indicate that the very same contentions urged, pleas advanced and arguments put forth today before us were the ones which were urged/raised in the said application. Though Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned senior counsel appearing for the State would fairly submit that the said application was withdrawn on the ground of subsequent schemes having been formulated andimplemented by the State of Himachal Pradesh, but we are unable to accept the said proposition howsoever attractive it may be, for the simple reason that the said application was dismissed simpliciter as withdrawn. Yet another factor which sways our mind to reject the contention raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the State would be the fact that the State having accepted the judgment 2026:HHC:6196 - 13 - of Ashwani Kumar (Supra), has implemented the same and it is in this background, the High Court in the impugned order has observed that the State cannot adopt pick and choose policy. 10. For the cumulative reasons afore stated, 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 ‘work charged’ 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 Tribunal, High Court or this Court, if having 2026:HHC:6196 - 14 - 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.” 7(iii). The mandate of law in the case of Surajmani (supra) has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No (s) 11170 of 2024, The State of H.P. & Ors vs Janak Dev Sharma, decided on 26.05.2025. Based on the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ashwani Kumar, Surajmani and Janak Dev Sharma (supra), the petitioner is held entitled for grant of work charge status as Beldar from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service w.e.f. 01.01.2003. 2026:HHC:6196 - 15 - ENTITLEMENT FOR NOTIONAL BENEFITS INSTEAD OF CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS: 7(iv). So far as the claim of the petitioner for consequential benefits including past arrears is concerned, this Court does not find any merit in the said claim, for the reason, that the judgment in the case of Ashwani Kumar, which was reinforced in the case of Surajmani (supra) and was further reiterated in the case of Janak Dev Sharma (supra) entitle the daily wagers for work charge status and upon conferment of work charge status, the relief shall be limited to "notional benefits". Once the declaration of law by the Honble Supreme Court in the cases of Ashwani Kumar, Surajmani and in Janak Dev Sharma (supra) mandated that upon grant of work charge status, the benefits would accrue on "notional benefits" then, claim of petitioner for past arrears is not tenable. However, it is clarified that the term "notional benefits" shall certainly entitle the petitioner for fixation of pay, in applicable pay scale from the date of grant of work charge 2026:HHC:6196 - 16 - status (w.e.f. 01.01.2003) with annual increments till his regularization as Beldar on 07.09.2007 w.e.f. 31.03.2006, and the resultant benefit of re-fixation of pay notionally till retirement, but without any past arrears. CLAIM FOR PAST ARREARS-IMPERMISSIBLE: 7(v). Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that upon grant of work charge status, the State Authorities have granted entire past arrears or arrears for three years preceding the filing of petition to other incumbents and therefore, the petitioner may be extended parity in treatment. EXCESS AMOUNT GRANTED ON CONFERMENT OF WORK CHARGE STATUS BY ORDERS OF TRIBUNAL-COURTS- HELD RECOVERABLE: The above contention of Learned Counsel for the petitioner for releasing entire past arrears or restricted arrears for three years preceding the filing of petition is devoid of any merit, for the reason, firstly, the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra) mandates that the incumbents who were "not regularly appointed in accordance with the ethos 2026:HHC:6196 - 17 - of the Constitutional Scheme of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, upon grant of work charged status were entitled for "notional benefits"; and secondly, the mandate of "notional benefits" implies grant of pay fixation in applicable pay scale from due date with annual increments only; and thirdly, the principle of giving notional benefits, "does not encompass admissibility of monetary benefits or past arrears"; and fourthly, once the judgement in the case of Surajmani (supra) is a judgment-in-rem approving the grant of work charge status with "notional benefits" therefore, the claim for past arrears (wholly or in part) can neither be claimed nor granted to the petitioner dehors the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra); and fifthly, the plea of the petitioner that since the benefit of past arrears {either wholly or in part} has been given to others upon grant of work charge status therefore, the petitioner may be granted same benefits cannot pass the test of judicial scrutiny, for the reason, that the 2026:HHC:6196 - 18 - judgment in the case of Surajmani (supra) takes care of this eventuality by mandating that the persons who were not regularly appointed or their appointment was not made in accordance with the ethos of the Constitutional Scheme of Articles 14 and 16 but were given past arrears {either wholly or in part) so as to implement the orders of the Tribunal or High Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court then, the past arrears so released were to be "treated as excess amount(s) which was liable to be recoverable", in the following terms:- “8. However, in order to allay the apprehension of the State as expressed thereunder and to safeguard the interest of the State which otherwise would have burdened the exchequer with extra benefits being conferred on the employees who had not been regularly appointed, this Court has, as a succor to the State, restricted the claim or, in other words, modified the order of the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court by arriving at a conclusion that the petitioners/ appellants therein would be entitled to the notional benefits of the order 2026:HHC:6196 - 19 - passed by the Tribunal and accordingly disposed of the said appeal. 9. It would not be out of context to refer at this juncture itself that the State, in its wisdom, having felt that the subsequent schemes having been formulated and implemented, would alter the situation and, therefore, order dated 12.04.1994 passed in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s (Supra) case has to be modified, had approached this Court by filing an Interlocutory Application being IA No. 3 in the year 2005 in the aforesaid Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case, i.e., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 787 of 1987. A perusal of the said application and the averments made thereunder would clearly indicate that the very same contentions urged, pleas advanced and arguments put forth today before us were the ones which were urged/raised in the said application. Though Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned senior counsel appearing for the State would fairly submit that the said application was withdrawn on the ground of subsequent schemes having been formulated and implemented by the State of Himachal Pradesh, but we are unable to accept the said proposition howsoever attractive it may be, for the simple reason that the said application was 2026:HHC:6196 - 20 - dismissed simpliciter as withdrawn. Yet another factor which sways our mind to reject the contention raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the State would be the fact that the State having accepted the judgment of Ashwani Kumar (Supra), has implemented the same and it is in this background, the High Court in the impugned order has observed that the State cannot adopt pick and choose policy. 11. We also make it explicitly clear that the State in its endeavor of implementing the orders of the 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.” CLAIM FOR PAST ARREARS STOOD ECLIPSED DUE TO RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION OF JUDGMENT IN SURAJMANI: 7(vi). Pertinently, as per the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanishk Sinha & another vs The State of West Bengal and others, (SLP (Cr) Nos 8609-8714 of 2024= 2025 INSC 278 decided on 27.02.2025), the law declared by the Honble Supreme Court applies retrospectively. 2026:HHC:6196 - 21 - In backdrop of legal principle outlined in the case of Kanishka Sinha (supra), once the Honble Supreme Court has declared the law in the case of Surajmani (supra), entitling the daily wagers for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service and by limiting the relief to "notional benefits", but without any past arrears and in case, past arrears {either wholly or in part} were released to others, so as to ensure compliance of the orders of Tribunal or High Court or the Supreme Court with the further mandate that in case, past arrears released to others the same will be treated as "excess amount which was liable to be recovered", so as to ensure parity qua the inadmissibility of past arrears, between one homogenous class of daily wagers, upon grant of work charge status. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner for releasing past arrears or monetary benefits [entire arrears or restricted arrears for 3 years preceding the filing of petition for work charged 2026:HHC:6196 - 22 - status] having stood eclipsed by virtue of the declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ashwani Kumar and Surajmani (supra) cannot be accepted. A right which stood "eclipsed and have become non-existent" cannot be granted. REGULARIZATION NOT BAR FOR GRANTING WORK CHARGE STATUS FROM EARLIER DATE: 7(vii). Learned State Counsel has raised an objection that once the petitioner stands regularized as an Beldar on 07.09.2007 w.e.f. 31.03.2006 [Annexure A-1], therefore, the claim for grant of work charge status from 01.01.2003 cannot be granted. The above contention of Learned State Counsel at the threshold, appears to be attractive but on testing the aforesaid contention, the same does not hold the ground, for the reason, that the issue as to whether a daily wager who stands regularized could be denied work charge status which is due from an earlier date stands answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Himachal Pradesh versus Gehar Singh, 2026:HHC:6196 - 23 - (2007) 12 SCC 43, which has been reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 231 of 2025, State of Himachal Pradesh vs Gita Ram Sharma, decided on 27.08.2025 in the following terms: 5(v). Besides, the above, mere grant of regularization cannot be a ground to deny the Work Charge Status from an earlier date, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh versus Gehar Singh, (2007) 12 SCC 43, which principle was reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.231 of 2025, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Gita Ram Sharma, decided on 27.08.2025. In these circumstances, the objection of the State Authorities cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny, when, the conferment of Work Charge Status is just a grant of better status, with higher pay in running pay scale, in lieu of the prolonged daily waged service rendered by such incumbent. Based on the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Surajmani (supra), Learned State Counsel is unable to dispute the settled position of law and entitlement of daily wagers 2026:HHC:6196 - 24 - for Work Charge Status, as referred to above.” 7(vii-a). Even, the Division Bench of this Court, in various judgments in LPA No. 82 of 2025, State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs Pritam Chand, decided on 27.08.2025, and in LPA No 100 of 2025, State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Layak Ram, has reiterated that even if benefit of regularization has been accorded, then also, lesser relief of work charge status which accrues from the mandate of law of the Honble Supreme Court in the cases of Ashwani Kumar, Surajmani and in Janak Dev Sharma (supra) cannot be restricted, curtailed or denied in any manner. Moreover, the applicability and operation of the judgment in the case of Surajmani (supra) being a judgment in rem cannot be negated and the same is binding on the Courts as well as the State Authorities. In these circumstances, the objection raised by Learned State Counsel is turned down. Accordingly, this Court holds that notwithstanding the regularization, the claim of 2026:HHC:6196 - 25 - the petitioner for lesser relief of work-charge status from an anterior date was maintainable and same was enforceable against State Authorities -Respondents herein. 7(viii). Contention of the State Authorities in reply that Nagar Parishad-Respondent No.3 does not have a work charge establishment and work charge status cannot be granted. The above contention is misconceived, for the reason, [Respondent No.3-Nagar Parishad] is a part of Urban Development Department of the State. Even the Division Bench of this Court has mandated in CWP No. 3111 of 2016, State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors vs Ashwani Kumar [Civil Appeal No 5753 of 2019, decided on 22.07.2019], mandated that for conferment of work charge status, there is neither requirement for work charge cadre-establishment nor the conversion or abolition of work charged posts could have any effect on the claim for work charge status by a daily wager. Moreover, the above findings contained in judgment of 2026:HHC:6196 - 26 - Division Bench in case of Ashwani Kumar [in CWP No. 3111 of 2016] remained undisturbed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019, decided on 22.07.2019, State of H.P. Vs. Ashwani Kumar; and benefits of work charge status from the date of completion of 08 years of continuous daily waged service has been reinforced in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Others versus Surajmani & Anr [in Civil Appeal No 1595 of 2025], by covering all the daily wagers working in all Departments throughout the State and even the State Authorities have implemented the mandate in the cases of Ashwani Kumar and Surajmani (supra) by giving work charge status to daily wagers of all government departments under the State and therefore, the plea of State Authorities is turned down and the petitioner is held entitled for work charge status from due date. 7(ix). An identical issue was decided by this Court in CWPOA No 3330 of 2020, Ranjeet Singh vs The State of Himachal Pradesh & 2026:HHC:6196 - 27 - Others, on 02.12.2025, whereby, daily wagers were held entitled for work charge from the date of completion of 08 years of continuous service on notional basis, without any past arrears. Denial of similar treatment to the petitioner amounts to treating "equals as unequal" and the action of Respondents is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 8. No other point was raised/argued. DIRECTIONS: 9. In view of above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed, in the following terms: (i). Petitioner is held entitled for work charge status from the date of completion of 08 years of continuous service as Beldar w.e.f. 01.01.2003, in terms of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra); (ii). State Authorities-Respondents are directed to grant work charge status from due date as in direction No.(i) supra; with “notional benefits” from due date as per the mandate in case of Surajmani (supra) but without any past arrears; 2026:HHC:6196 - 28 - (iii). Claim of petitioner for consequential benefits [entire past arrears or restrictive arrears for three years prior to filing of the petition] is declined, in the light of Para 11 of Surajmani (supra); (iv). State Authorities are directed to comply with the directions No. (i) to (iii) (supra) within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified/ downloaded copy of this judgment. (v). Parties to bear respective costs. In the aforesaid terms, the instant petition and all miscellaneous pending application(s), if any, shall accordingly stands disposed of. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge January 01, 2026 [Shivender]