IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.20665 of 2026 Date of Decision: 06.01.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Naresh Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus HPSFCL & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath & Mr., Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Mr. Hitansh Raj, Advocates, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arjun Lall, Advocate, for respondents No.2 & 3. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief:- “a. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 14.10.2025, whereby benefits earlier granted to the Petitioner was withdrawn and further the Respondent may be directed to restore the annual increment granted to the Petitioner period during which he remained on Work Charge basis and further his pay arrived at after earning the increment during work charge period may be protected at the time of regularization may be protected.” 2. Petitioner’s case is that while implementing the Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, titled as The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Versus Surajmani & Anr., decided alongwith connected civil appeals on 06.02.2025, the respondents conferred work-charge status upon him retrospectively and accordingly, issued office orders (Annexure P-2 Colly.), fixing his pay by granting notional increments. The fixation of pay was carried out by the respondents on notional basis in view of the directions issued in Surajmani (supra). Petitioner’s grievance is that vide office order dated 14.10.2025 (Annexure P-3), the notional annual increments granted to him earlier, were withdrawn. Consequently, petitioner’s pay was re-fixed under office order dated 14.10.2025 without granting him the benefit of annual increments even on notional basis. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner stands squarely covered and has already been adjudicated upon in CWPOA No.3103/2020, titled as Jayanti Rathore & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 19.11.2025, whereunder following directions were issued: - “8. In view of above discussion, and for the reasons recorded herein above, the instant petition is disposed of, in following terms:- (i) Claim of petitioners for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wages service [stand already given to petitioners 1 & 2 w.e.f. 01.01.2004 and to petitioners 3 to 6 w.e.f. 01.01.2005] is affirmed; being inconsonance with the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Surajmani (supra); 2 (ii) State Authorities shall extend the relief of “notional benefits” to the petitioners from the date of grant of work charge status [if not already granted] with annual increments till regularization with ‘notional benefits”, but without any past arrears; (iii) Claim of the petitioners for past arrears [wholly or in part] upon grant of work charge status is declined in terms of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surajmani (supra) which recognizes “notional benefits”; (iv) Parties to bear respective costs. In the aforesaid terms, the instant petition along with pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied, in case, respondents/competent authority are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of the directions issued in the above judgment, more particularly direction No.(ii), in terms of which, the respondents have been directed to extend the notional benefits to the petitioners (therein) from the date of conferment of work charge status with annual increments on notional basis. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have no objection to this prayer. 5. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for grant of notional annual increment from the date of conferment of work charge status in accordance with law 3 as well as taking into consideration the above judgment, within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. January 06, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 4