Himachal Pradesh High Court
Naresh Kumar vs Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar on 27 August, 2025
( 2025:HHC:28904 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
LPA No. 184 of 2024
Reserved on: 14.08.2025
Announced on: 27.08.2025
____________________________________________________________
.
Naresh Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar, H.P. Krishi
Vishwavidyalaya, Palampur and another
....Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1Whether approved for reporting?. Yes.
For the appellant: Mr. A.K. Gupta and Ms. Babita
Chauhan, Advocates.
For the respondents: Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Appellant-writ petitioner has come up before
this Court, assailing the Judgment dated 10.06.2024
[referred to as Impugned Judgment] passed by
the Learned Single Judge in CWP No. 4983 of 2024,
In re: Naresh Kumar versus Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar
H.P. Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Palampur and another ;
dismissing the writ petition filed by the Respondent-
Employee [Naresh Kumar], for claiming work charged
status on the ground of delay and laches.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
-2- ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
FACTUAL MATRIX BEFORE THE WRIT COURT:
2. Naresh Kumar, writ petitioner, (now appellant)
a Lab Helper [Class-IV], had filed a CWP No. 4983
.
of 2024, seeking the following relief:-
"(i). That Annexure P-1 may be set aside
/quashed and the respondents may
be ordered to grant work charge
status to the petitioner from the date
he completed 8 years with all
benefits incidental thereof."
2(i). In CWP No. 4983 of 2024, the appellant-
writ petitioner herein, had set up a case that
he was engaged as a daily waged labourer (DPL)
by the Respondent-University in the year 1993, and
he rendered continuous service with 240 days during
the year 1994 onwards and he completed 8 years
on daily wage service and became eligible for grant
of work charge status from 01.01.2002. However,
the appellant-writ petitioner was regularized by the
Respondent Authorities on 16.06.2007 and he joined
as such on 19.06.2007 as Lab Helper [Class-IV]
yet he was denied the work charge status. Against
this denial, he filed CWP No 1095 of 2012, Charan
Dass & another vs CSKHPKV, which was disposed
of on 06.03.2015, with directions to consider the case
-3- ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
of appellant-writ petitioner in light of the judgment
in CWP No.2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar
versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others,
.
to examine the matter, even though the state had
assailed the aforesaid judgement in appeal. Since
nothing was done by the Respondent Authorities,
therefore, Execution Pet No 497 of 2015 so filed
was decided on 28.10.2015 with directions to take
a decision in the matter. Resultantly, the Respondent
University, rejected the claim on 10.12.2015, Annexure
P-1, on the ground that the appellant-writ petitioner
had already been regularized on post of Lab Helper
on 19.06.2007 coupled with the fact that the Respondent
University does not have a work charge establishment
and, therefore, the writ petitioner was not entitled
for work charge status, which was not sustainable,
when, the Respondent University has accorded work
charge status to another similarly placed incumbent,
namely Sarwan Kumar on 16.09.2023, Annexure P-2
w.e.f. 01.01.2001 i.e. the date of completion of 8
years of continuous daily wage service and therefore,
the denial of work charge status and other benefits
-4- ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
was discriminatory, illegal and unsustainable.
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 10.06.2024 BY
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE:
3. During first hearing, the writ petition was
.
dismissed by the Learned Single Judge on the ground
that firstly, the appellant-writ petitioner already stood
regularized as Lab Helper 19.06.2007; and secondly,
his claim for work charge status was rejected by
Respondent Authorities on 10.12.2015 [Annexure P-1]
but the instant petition was filed in May 2024
but without submitting any explanation as to why he
had not approached the Court, within a reasonable;
and thirdly, order dated 16.09.2023, {Annexure P-2}
was just an implementation order giving work charge
status to another employee and this implementation
order was not based on a policy decision, which was
subject to the outcome of pending SLP No 28840
of 2023, CSKHPKV versus Sarwan Kumar. In these
circumstances, the writ petition was dismissed by
Learned Single Judge, on the ground of delay and
laches in the following terms:-
"4. Having heard learned Counsel
for the petitioner as well as learned
-5- ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
Advocate General and having perused
the averments made in the petition
as well as the documents appended
therewith, this court is of the
considered view that the present
.
petition is grossly hit by delay and
laches. A perusal of Annexure P-1
demonstrates that the petitioner had
approached this Court for the grant
of work charge status from the date
of completion of eight years of service
by way of CWP No. 1095 of 2012, titled
as Charan Dass and another vs.
CSKHPKV, Palampur. Said petition
was disposed of by this Court by
directing the competent Authority to
take a decision thereupon. Thereafter,
as per Annexure P-1, the case of the
petitioner for grant of work charge
status was rejected by the Authority
concerned on 10.12.2015. Now there
is no explanation in the writ petition
as to what prevented the petitioner
from assailing this order of rejection
which was passed as far back as
on 10.12.2015. Passing of Annexure
P-2 does not confer any fresh cause
upon the petitioner to approach the
Court for the reason that Annexure
P-2 is not a policy decision that
has been taken by the respondent-
University with regard to the conferment
of work charge status as is given
to the incumbents mentioned in
-6- ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
Annexure P-2. This is a simple
order of implementation of judgment
passed in favour of the parties therein,
subject to final outcome of the
SLP that has been preferred by the
.
respondent-University.
Therefore, as this court is satisfied
that the present petition is grossly
hit by delay and laches, the same
is accordingly dismissed."
CHALLENGE TO IMPUGNED JUDGMENT BY
APPELLANT-WRIT PETITIONER:
4. Learned Counsel for appellant-writ petitioner
contends that that the Impugned Judgment dated
10.06.2024 dismissing the claim on the ground of
delay and laches, is erroneous, in view of the fact
that firstly, mere regularization of services of the
appellant in the year in 2007 will neither take away
nor divest him of the right for work charge status
w.e.f. 01.01.2002; and secondly, the denial of work
charged status amounts to depriving the appellant of
benefit of the judgments in Ashwani Kumar and
the judgement in the case of Surajmani which is
a judgement in rem ; and thirdly, the denial of
work charged status to the appellant when, this
benefit has been granted to other similarly placed
-7- ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
incumbents including Sarwan Kumar on 16.09.2023,
Annexure P-2 ; and fourthly, the pendency of SLP
© No 28840 of 2023, CSKHPKV versus Sarwan Kumar
.
cannot be a ground to deny the work charge status
when, the aforesaid SLP (C) No. 28840 of 2023 [as
in Annexure P-2], stands decided along with case
of Surajmani [SLP(C) 23016 of 2023 converted as
Civil Appeal No 1595 of 2025 on 06.02.2025]; affirming
the entitlement of grant of work charge status from
the date of completion of eight years of continuous
daily waged service ; lastly, the dismissal of writ on
the ground of delay and laches is unsustainable
when, entitlement for work charged status involves
pay fixation in time scale of pay and benefit of
such higher pay fixation during service [being an
in-service employee] and resultant benefit thereof for
higher retiral benefits, including pension and once
the claim is based on a recurring/continuing cause;
then, the impugned judgement was liable to be
set-aside with the right for work charge status, with
attendant benefits.
5. Heard, Mr. A.K. Gupta, Learned Counsel
-8- ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
for appellant-writ petitioner and Mr. Janesh Mahajan
for the Respondent University.
6. Though the issue involved in the instant
.
appeal is no longer res integra, in view of the
mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State of
Himachal Pradesh & Others versus Surajmani and
Another [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025] and other
connected matters, decided on 06.02.2025 yet, in
view of vehement opposition by Learned Respondent
Counsel, this Court proceeds to adjudicate the instant
appeal at this stage itself.
CONCEPT OF WORK CHARGE STATUS IN STATE
OF HIMACHAL PRADESH :
7. Before dealing with the claim for work
charged status, it is necessary to have a recap of
the concept of work charged status, in the State
of Himachal Pradesh, the eligibility therefor and extent
of benefits accruing therefrom.
7(i). Notably, in the State of Himachal Pradesh
there were hundreds of daily wage workers who
were engaged and had rendered prolonged service
in peculiar geographical and topographical conditions
of the State. In recognition of prolonged daily wage
-9- ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
service, the State Government formulated a "scheme
for betterment of skilled and unskilled daily wage/
muster-roll workers in all government departments"
.
by putting them in the time scale of pay, as is
applicable to corresponding lowest grade of employees
in the government. Upon grant of time scale, these
daily wagers were termed as "work charge employees."
The aforesaid scheme formulated by the government
was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mool
Raj Upadhyaya versus State of Himachal Pradesh
(1994) Supp (2) SCC 316, mandating that daily
wage/ muster-roll workers were to be appointed as
work charge employees in time scale of pay applicable
to corresponding lowest grade from the date they
complete 10 years of continuous daily wage service.
Learned Counsel submits that even if the appellant-
writ petitioner stands regularized still he has a right
to be considered and granted work charged status
from an earlier date, i.e. the date of completion of
requisite daily waged service, {10 years daily waged
service, later reduced to 8 years daily waged service}
in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble
- 10 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh
vs Gehar Singh (2007) 12 SCC 43. Later on,
the State Authorities notified a policy on 03.04.2000
.
providing for conferring work charge status to the
daily wagers on completion of 8 years of continuous
service as on 31.3.2000. This policy of 03.04.2000
remained in vogue till the issuance of another policy
on 09.06.2004. In the backdrop of these policies,
the issue as which of the daily wagers would be
governed by the policy of 03.04.2000, was adjudicated
by the Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Gauri Dutt & Others vs State of HP, Latest HLJ
2008 [HP] 366, mandating that those daily wagers,
who had completed one year of continuous service
{240 days service} during the years 1993 and were
engaged prior to 31.12.1993 would be granted work
charge status from the date they complete requisite
10 years continuous service in terms of the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mool Raj
Upadhyaya (supra), whereas, those daily wagers
who were engaged during 1993 and had not rendered
continuous service of 240 days during the year
- 11 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
1993 or those daily wagers who were engaged or
after 01.01.1994 and rendered continuous service
thereafter were to be granted work-charge status
.
from date of completion of 8 years of continuous
daily wage/muster-roll service. The issue regarding
the conferment of work charge status to daily wagers
on completion of 8 years continuous service was
adjudicated by this Court in Rakesh Kumar versus
State of Himachal
toPradesh
2010, upheld in SLP (C) No. 8830-8869 of 2011
r [CWP No. 2735 of
on 15.01.2015]. In another matter, the issue as to
whether for conferring work charge status there
was any requirement of a post and/or whether the
abolition of work charge cadre/establishment could
have impact on granting work charge status became
the subject matter before the State Administrative
Tribunal in OA and then before another coordinate
Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3111 of
2016, in case of State of Himachal Pradesh versus
Ashwani Kumar and this judgment was assailed before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal
Pradesh versus Ashwini Kumar, [Civil Appeal No.
- 12 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
5753 of 2019, decided on 22.07.2019], whereby,
the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this
Court regarding grant of work charged status from
.
the date of completion of 8 years continuous daily
wage service was upheld. The other directions passed
by the Division Bench that for conferment of work
charge status, there was neither a need for work
charge establishment nor its cessation or abolition
would make any difference and even the findings
that for conferring such status, even the availability
or non-availability of a post was not a pre-requisite
for conferring work charge status, to daily wagers
in all departments, throughout the state from the
date of completion of 8 years of continuous service.
However, while deciding the Civil Appeal in case of
Ashwani Kumar (supra) the directions passed by
State Administrative Tribunal, which were upheld by
the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3111
of 2016, for granting "all consequential benefits"
was modified by mandating to confer work charge
status "notionally". Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh
- 13 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
versus Surajmani [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of
2025, decided on 06.02.2025], has reinforced the
mandate to grant work charge status from the date
.
of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged
service on notional basis.
LAW DECLARED BY THIS COURT ON CONCEPT
OF WORK CHARGE STATUS IS ALSO PARI-
MATERIA TO DECISION IN SURAJMANI:
7(ii). In plethora of judgments, the daily wagers
have been held entitled for work charge status, in
time scale of pay as is admissible to corresponding
category of employees on completion of requisite 8
years of daily waged service irrespective of the fact
as to whether work charge establishment exists or
not, in Pritam Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh,
CWPOA No 7497 of 2020, decided on 29.7.2024, in the
following terms:-
"21. With respect to ground taken by
the respondents Department that
Department is not having work-charged
establishment and, thus, benefit of
period of service as a work charged
employee cannot be extended to the
petitioner, it is apt to record that
in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case an
affidavit was filed by the Chief
Secretary to the Government of
Himachal Pradesh, formulating a
Scheme for granting work charged
status to all daily-waged employees,
- 14 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
serving in the State of Himachal
Pradesh, in all Departments, irrespective
of the fact that Department is/was
having work-charged establishment or
not.
22. In Gauri Dutt's case, it has been
.
held that the scheme formulated in
Mool Raj Upadhayaya case is applicable
to daily-waged employees working in
any department of the state of Himachal
Pradesh and the employees, who are not
governed by the directions given in Mool
Raj Upadhayay's case, shall be governed
by a Scheme framed by the State in this
regard and it has also been observed
that granting of work-charged status
would mean that an employee would
get regular scale of pay.
23. Upholding the order passed by the
erstwhile H.P. State Administrative
Tribunal, a Division Bench of this Court,
vide judgment dated 10.5.2018, in CWP
No. 3111 of 2016, titled as State of
Himachal Pradesh v. Ashwani Kumar,
has pronounced that work- charged
establishment is not a prerequisite for
conferment of work-charged status nor
conversion of work-charged employee
into regular employee would make such
establishment non-existent.
24. Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019,
titled as State of H.P. vs. Ashwani
Kumar, preferred by the State in Ashwani
Kumar's case has been dismissed by
the Supreme Court on 22.07.2019.
Similarly, SLP (C) No. 8830-8869 of
2011 preferred by the State in Rakesh
Kumar's case also stands dismissed
by the Supreme Court on 15.01.2015.
25. Term "work-charge", in Himachal
Pradesh, is used in different context.
A person, working on daily-waged basis,
before his regularization, is granted work-
charged status on completion of specified
- 15 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
number of years as daily wager and effect
thereof is that thereafter non-completion
of 240 days in a calendar year would
not result into his ouster from the
service or debar him from getting the
benefit of length of service for that
particular year. Normally, work-charged
.
status is conferred upon a daily-wager,
on accrual of his right for regularization,
on completion of prescribed period
of service, but for non-regularization
is for want of regular vacancy in the
department or for any other just
and valid reason. Therefore, it is a
period interregnum daily-wage service
and regularization, which is altogether
different form the temporary
establishment of work charge, as
discussed in the judgment of the Apex
Court relied upon by the State and,
for practice in Himachal Pradesh, work-
charged status is not conferred upon
the person employed in a project but
upon such daily-wage workers, who
are to be continued after particular
length of service for availability of
work but without regularization for
want of creation of post by Government
for his regularization /regular appointment.
Therefore, work is always available in
such cases and the charge of a daily
wager is created thereon to avoid his
disengagement for reasons upon which
a daily-wager can be dispensed with from
service.
26. On conferment of work-charged status,
sword of disengagement, hanging on the
neck of workmen, is removed on completion
of specified period of daily-waged service,
as thereafter instead of daily-wage, the
employee would get regular pay-scale and
would be entitled to other consequential
benefits for which a daily-waged employee
is not entitled.
27. In response to plea that work-
- 16 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
charged establishment does not exist
in the respondent Department, learned
counsel for the petitioner has also referred
pronouncements of this High Court in
cases CWPOA No. 5748 of 2019, titled
Man Singh Vs. The State of Himachal
.
Pradesh and others; CWPOA No. 52 of
2019, titled Beli Ram Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh and another; CWPOA No. 5566
of 2019, titled as Reema Devi Vs.
State of H.P. and others; and CWPOA
No. 5660 of 2019, titled Ghanshyam
Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
and others; LPA No. 151 of 2021, titled
State of HP Vs. Beli Ram, decided
on 09.08.2023; CWPOA No. 5554 of
2019, titled Daulat Ram vs. State of
HP and others; CWPOA No.6468 of
2020 titled Uggam Ram vs. State of
HP and others decided on 09.11.2023;
and CWPOA No. 6151 of 2020 titled Rashid
Mohammed vs. State of HP and others
decided on 13.06.2024; wherein similar
plea of respondent-State did not find
favour of the Court.
28. According to pronouncement in
Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case, clarified
in Gauri Dutt's case, work charge
status was to be conferred irrespective
of existence of work charge stablishment.
The said fact has not been considered
in Rakesh Kumar's case. In fact, in
Rakesh Kumar's case, this issue was
not adjudicated but without considering
Mool Raj's case and without assigning
any reason, a passing observation was
made. Whereas this issue has been
adjudicated and decided in subsequent
judgment in Ashwani Kumar's case.
Therefore, observations made on this
issue in Rakesh Kumar's case are not
binding especially when Civil Appeal
in Ashwani Kumar's case has been
dismissed by Supreme Court. Therefore,
abolition or non-existence of work
charge establishment in the respondent
- 17 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
-Department has no effect on the
rights of petitioner for conferment
of work-charged status after completion
of 8 years in terms of Policy of
the Government as well as verdict of
Rakesh Kumar's case.
.
29. For conferment of work-charged
status, work-charged establishment in
the Department is not prerequisite.
The same has also been affirmed by
the Principal Division Bench of this
Court in judgment dated 9.8.2023 passed
in LPA No 151 of 2021, titled as State
of Himachal Pradesh versus Beli Ram
also."
Notably, the policies issued by the State
Authorities, were adopted and were made applicable
by the Respondent University for its employees. In
this scenario, the stand of the Respondent University
in rejecting the case of the appellant-writ petitioner
for the grant of work charge status on 10.12.2015,
Annexure P-1, as the Respondent-University did not
have work charged establishment cannot sustain. This
plea cannot be of any assistance to the Respondent
Authorities, in view of the mandate of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in cases of Mool Raj Upadhyaya,
Gehar Singh, Ashwani Kumar that the conferment
of work charge status was just grant of higher pay
in the time scale of pay admissible to corresponding
- 18 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
category of employees under the government as in
instant case and in such an eventuality, there was
neither any requirement of a post nor would the
.
abolition or conversion of a post, would have any
impact on grant of work charge status to daily
wagers on completion of requisite service {10 years
of daily waged service later reduced to 8 years
daily waged service, as in instant case}. The principles
approved by the Honble Supreme Court in Mool
Raj Upadhayaya and Ashwani Kumar were reinforced
by the Honble Supreme Court, recently, in the case
of Surajmani (supra) and on the same lines, this
Court had also affirmed the right of daily wagers
for work charge status after 8 years in cases of
Gauri Dutt, Rakesh Kumar and Pritam Singh
{CWPOA No 7497 of 2020, decided on 29.7.2024}.
Accordingly, the plea of the Respondent University
as referred to above, is turned down and the
impugned judgement dismissing the writ petition is
set-aside.
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT-WRIT PETITIONER:
8. First contention of Learned Counsel for
- 19 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
the appellant-writ petitioner that the orders dated
10.12.2015, Annexure P-1, rejecting the claim on the
ground that Respondent University did not have a
.
work charged establishment is contrary to settled
law and impugned judgment is unsustainable.
The above contention has force, for the
reason, that the plea that the University does not
have a work charged establishment cannot sustain.
Indisputably, the
policies of regularization
by State Authorities, which includes grant of work
r issued
charged status were adopted and made applicable
by the Respondent University for its employees. In
such a scenario, the plea that University does not
have a work charge establishment cannot sustain.
Further, the aforesaid plea also stood negated in
principle, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Mool Raj Upadhyaya, Gehar Singh and Ashwani
Kumar (supra). Moreover, the work charge status in
State of Himachal Pradesh, was just conferment of
a better status, by granting higher pay in time
scale of pay as is admissible to the corresponding
category of employees, for which, there was neither
- 20 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
any requirement of a work charge establishment
nor was there any requirement of a post and even
abolition or conversion of a post, if any, would
.
have any impact on grant of work charge status to
daily wagers on completion of requisite service {10
years of daily waged service, which was later reduced
to 8 years of daily waged service, as in the instant
case}. The principles approved in the cases of Mool
Raj Upadhayaya and Ashwani Kumar (supra), were
reinforced by the Honble Supreme Court recently,
in the case of Surajmani (supra) and by this Court
in cases of Gauri Dutt, Rakesh Kumar and in
Pritam Singh {CWPOA No 7497 of 2020, decided
on 29.7.2024}, entitling the daily wagers for work
charge status from the date of completion of 8
years of daily waged service. Denial of work charged
status shall amount to treating equals as unequal.
Denial shall frustrate the intent and spirit behind
declaration of law in the judgement in case of
Surajmani (supra), which is a judgement in rem.
The rejection orders cannot be permitted to operate
as to take away or to divest the appellant-writ
- 21 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
petitioner of his right and entitlement for work
charged status from the date of completion of 8
years of continuous daily wage service notionally,
.
accruing in terms of the judgement in rem, in case
of Surajmani (supra). Accordingly, rejection orders
and the impugned judgement denying work-charged
status notionally being contrary to law declared by
the judgement in rem, cannot stand the test of
judicial scrutiny and therefore, the rejection order
and the impugned judgement is set-aside.
DISALLOWING CLAIM BY INVOKING DELAY AND
LACHES UNSUSTAINABLE:
9. Second contention of Learned Counsel for
the appellant-writ petitioner that the Learned Single
Judge has disallowed the claim for work charge
status and benefits accruing therefrom, by invoking
delay and laches, erroneously.
9(i). The invocation of delay and latches was
misconceived, in view of the fact that the appellant
-writ petitioner has set up a case in Para 5
of the writ petition, which was supported by the
order dated 16.09.2023 (Annexure P-2) asserting that
the Respondent University had granted work charge
- 22 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
status to large number of similarly placed daily
wagers from the date of completion of 8 years
continuous daily wage service and denial of similar
.
treatment and parity is discriminatory and violative
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. Action of Respondent Authorities in granting
work charge status to some while denying this
benefit to the appellant-writ petitioner reveals hostile
wagers, who
r are to
discrimination within one homogenous class of daily
covered by the judgements in
Ashwani Kumar and Surajmani (supra). Pick and
choose method in extending work charge status, is
deprecated, in the teeth of the declaration of law.
Uniformity is the essence of equality and benefits
accruing from judgement in rem have to be extended
to all concerned, as a class, so as to avoid the
charge of hostile discrimination. Denial of work charge
status to appellant-writ petitioner when, Respondent
Authorities have already granted these benefits to
similarly placed incumbents in the past (as in
Annexure P-2 dated 16.09.2023). Even after passing
of judgement in Surajmani (supra), this Court has
- 23 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
ordered grant of work charged status to Respondent
-Employee in LPA No 83 of 2025, CSKHPKV versus
Bishan Dass decided on 11.03.2025. Resultantly, in
.
these circumstances, the Respondent Authorities are
bound to extend the work charge status notionally
to all other remaining or left out daily wagers, alike
the appellant-writ petitioner.
9(ii). Besides this, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has mandated in Para 12 of the judgement in the
case of Surajmani (supra) that this judgement would
necessarily be a judgement in rem, in the following
terms:-
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].
Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
mandated in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary
No(s). 11170 of 2024, in Re; The State of H.P.
& Ors. Versus Janak Dev Sharma, decided on
- 24 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
26.05.2025, reiterating that the judgment in case
of Surajmani (supra), is a judgment in rem with
further mandate that the directions contained in the
.
said judgement, would apply mutatis mutandis in
all cases having same facts, in the following terms :-
"5. It is experienced that despite passing
the judgment in Surajmani (supra) which
is in rem, but in view of the separate
orders passed by the High Court, several
special leave petitions are being filed
by the State. Considering the same, it
is to be expressed that in our view,
when a judgment in rem has been
passed, it would apply mutatis mutandis
in all cases having similar facts and
filing separate special leave petitions is
in futility. The State may take note of
this fact and do the needful."
9(iii). The Hon'ble Supreme Court outlined in
the case of Surajmani (supra) that the benefit of
work charged status from the date of completion
of 8 years daily waged continuous service has to
be extended to all daily wagers without resorting
to pick and choose policy, in following terms:
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
- 25 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
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 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
- 26 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
that the State cannot adopt pick
and choose policy.
DECLARATION OF LAW BASED ON JUDGEMENT
IN REM IS BINDING:
9(iv). In above backdrop, once the judgement in
.
Surajmani [supra] is a judgement in rem, declaring
the law, entitling daily wagers including appellant-
writ petitioner for work charge status from the date
of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged
continuous service therefore, such declaration of law
is binding on the Respondent Authorities, including
this Court. The benefits flowing from the judgement
in rem cannot be negated or defeated by invoking
the plea of delay and laches, when, the Respondent
Authorities have granted work charge status to many
other similarly placed persons in various government
departments, including the Respondent University.
The Respondent Authorities cannot be permitted to
adopt a without pick and choose policy. Conferment
of work charge status has to be granted uniformly
to all concerned so as to ensure parity and to
avoid the charge of discrimination so as to give
effect to the judgement in rem, without insisting for
- 27 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
or without invoking delay and laches, as mandated
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State of U.P
versus Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC
.
347, in following terms:-
22.1. Normal rule is that when a particular
set of employees is given relief by the
Court, all other identically situated
persons need to be treated alike by
extending that benefit. Not doing so
would amount to discrimination and
would be violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. This principle needs
to be applied in service matters more
emphatically as the service jurisprudence
evolved by this Court from time to
time postulates that all similarly situated
r persons should be treated similarly.
Therefore, the normal rule would be that
merely because other similarly situated
persons did not approach the Court
earlier, they are not to be treated
differently.
22.2. However, this principle is subject to
well recognized exceptions in the form
of laches and delays as well as
acquiescence. Those persons who did not
challenge the wrongful action in their
cases and acquiesced into the same
and woke up after long delay only because
of the reason that their counterparts
who had approached the Court earlier
in time succeeded in their efforts, then
such employees cannot claim that the
benefit of the judgment rendered in the
case of similarly situated persons be
extended to them. They would be treated
as fence-sitters and laches and delays,
and/or the acquiescence, would be a
valid ground to dismiss their claim.
22.3. However, this exception may not apply
- 28 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
in those cases where the judgment
pronounced by the Court was judgment
in rem with intention to give benefit to
all similarly situated persons, whether
they approached the Court or not. With
such a pronouncement the obligation
is cast upon the authorities to itself
.
extend the benefit thereof to all similarly
situated person. Such a situation can
occur when the subject matter of the
decision touches upon the policy matters,
like scheme of regularisation and the
like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union
of India (1997) 6 SCC 721."
After negating the plea of delay and laches,
the Honble Supreme
to Court has
the benefit of a judicial pronouncement, which is
a judgement in rem, is extendable to all similarly
mandated that
placed incumbents, in Chairman/ Managing Director
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and
others versus Ram Gopal, (2021) 13 SCC 225, as
under:-
13. We may hasten to add that these principles
may not, however, apply to judgments
which are delivered in rem. The State
and its instrumentalities are expected
in such category of cases to themselves
extend the benefit of a judicial
pronouncement to all similarly placed
employees without forcing each person
to individually knock the doors of
courts. This distinction between operation
of delay and laches to judgments delivered
in rem and in personam, is lucidly
captured in State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar
Srivastava, ......"
- 29 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
Once a principle of law stands declared
by mandating a judgement to be a judgement in
rem, then, all similarly placed persons are entitled
.
for same benefits without forcing them to come to
Courts, as outlined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in case of Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel versus Union
of India, Civil Appeal No 1943 of 2022, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3664, in following terms:-
r 14.
It is a well settled principle of law that
where a citizen aggrieved by an action
of the government department
approached the court and obtained a
has
declaration of law in his/her favour,
others similarly situated ought to be
extended the benefit without the need
for them to go to court. [See Amrit
Lal Berry vs. Collector of Central Excise
New Delhi and Others, (1975) 4 SCC
714].
15. In K. I. Shephard and Others vs. Union
of India and Others, (1987) 4 SCC
431, this Court while reinforcing the
above principle held as under:
19. The writ petitions and the appeals
must succeed. We set aside the impugned
judgments of the Single Judge and
Division Bench of the Kerala High Court
and direct that each of the three transferee
banks should take over the excluded
employees on the same terms conditions
- 30 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
of employment under the respective
banking companies prior to amalgamation.
The employees would be entitled to the
benefit of continuity of service for all
purposes including salary and perks
.
throughout the period. We leave it open
to the transferee banks to take such
action as they consider proper against
these employees in accordance with
law. Some of the excluded employees
have not come to court. There is no
justification to penalise them for not
having litigated. They too shall be
entitled to the same benefits as the
r petitioners....
16. No doubt, in exceptional cases where
the court has expressly prohibited the
extension of the benefit to those who
have not approached the court till then
or in cases where a grievance in personam
is redressed, the matter may acquire a
different dimension, and the department
may be justified in denying the relief to
an individual who claims the extension
of the benefit of the said judgment.
18. The respondent authorities on their
own should have extended the benefit
of the judgment of AFT, Principal
Bench in OA No.111 of 2013 and
batch to the appellant. To illustrate,
take the case of the valiant Indian soldiers
bravely guarding the frontiers at Siachen
or in other difficult terrain. Thoughts
on conditions of service and job perquisites
will be last in their mind. Will it be
- 31 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
fair to tell them that they will not
be given relief even if they are
similarly situated, since the judgment
they seek to rely on, was passed
in the case of certain applicants
.
alone who moved the court ? We
think that would be a very unfair
scenario. Accepting the stand of the
respondents in this case would result
in this Court putting its imprimatur
on an unreasonable stand adopted by
the authorities.
23. We hold that the appellant was wrongly
excluded from consideration when
other similarly situated officers were
r considered and granted permanent
commission. Today, eleven years have
elapsed. It will not be fair to subject her
to the rigors of the 2013 parameters
as she is now nearly 45 years of age.
There has been no fault on the part of
the appellant."
CLAIM INVOLVING HIGHER PAY FIXATION
AND HIGHER PENSION IS A RECURRING AND
CONTINUNG CAUSE:
9(v). Learned Counsel for appellant-writ petitioner
contends that Learned Single Judge has dismissed
the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches
erroneously, when, the grant of work charge status,
involves higher pay fixation during service [being an
in-service employee] and the resultant higher retiral
- 32 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
benefits, including higher pension on superannuation
giving rise to a recurring and continuing cause every
month.
.
The above contention has force, for the
reason, that once the Honble Supreme Court has
mandated that the judgement in case of Surajmani
[supra], is a judgment in rem, entitling daily wagers
for work charged status from the date of completion
of 8 years of continuous service then, the benefits
accruing from the declaration of law can neither
be restricted nor curtailed or denied to daily wagers
like appellant-writ petitioner. Denial of work charge
status to the appellant-writ petitioner shall certainly
defeat the mandate of the judgement for granting
benefits without resorting to pick and choose when,
the State Authorities have extended benefit to large
number of daily wagers throughout the State and
the Respondent University has also extended benefits
to many similar incumbents, and therefore, remaining
or left over incumbents, alike appellant-writ petitioner
are also entitled for the same benefits, so as to
give effect to the intent and spirit of the judgement
- 33 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
dated 06.02.2025, in the case of Surajmani (supra),
which stands reinforced on 26.05.2025 in case of
Janak Dev Sharma (supra). Further, the denial of
.
benefit to the appellant-writ petitioner shall certainly
amount to treating the "equals as unequal" and shall
defeat the parity. Denial of benefits to the appellant-
writ petitioner shall perpetuate hostile discrimination
within one homogenous class of daily wagers, who
are entitled for work charged status after 8 years
of daily waged service. Denial shall frustrate the
spirit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. In-addition, the conferment of work charge
status involves pay fixation in time scale of pay as
is admissible to corresponding category of employees
from the date of completion of 8 years continuous
daily waged w.e.f. 01.01.2002 and then in revised
scale w.e.f. 1.01.2006 and in revised scales w.e.f.
1.1.2016 and even thereafter and resultant benefit
of higher pay for higher retiral benefits including
higher pension on superannuation also. Once these
benefits give rise to a recurring and continuing
cause every month till day, then, the impugned
- 34 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
judgement, disallowing the claim by invoking delay
and laches is erroneous in law, is contrary to the
mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases
.
of M. R. Gupta versus Union of India (1995) 5
SCC 628, Union of India versus Tarsem Singh
(2008) 8 SCC 648, Shiv Dass versus Union of
India (2007) 9 SCC 274, and recently in Shri
M.L. Patil (dead) through LRs versus The State
of Goa and another, 2022 Live Law (SC) 537.
Thus, once the judgement of the Honble
Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra
decided on 06.02.2025), which is a judgement in
rem, confers a right for work charge status involving
pay fixation from due date till day and therefore,
such an accrued right, in terms of the judgement
in rem, could not have been negated by invoking
delay and laches. Accordingly, impugned judgement
passed by the Learned Single Judge is liable to
be interfered with, in facts of instant case. Ordered
accordingly.
CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT COUNSEL:
10. First contention of the Learned Respondent
- 35 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
Counsel that once the services of the appellant-
writ petitioner stood regularized as Lab Helper on
19.06.2007 then, the work charge status was not
.
admissible.
The above plea is not tenable, for the
reason, that the Honble Supreme Court in the case
of State of Himachal Pradesh vs Gehar Singh
(2007) 12 SCC 43, has approved in principle, that
nor
r divest to
regularization of services (in 2007) will neither take
away a daily wager of his right for
work charge status from an earlier date (01.01.2002)
and therefore, the aforesaid contention is turned
down.
11. Second contention of Learned Respondent
Counsel is that Learned Single Judge has rightly
dismissed the claim in 2015 whereas the petition
was filed in May 2024 but without submitting any
explanation for the delay.
The above contention is misconceived in
of this judgement supra. The issue regarding work
charge status from the date of completion of 8
- 36 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
years of continuous daily waged service remained
sub-judice in numerous cases in the past. However,
in terms of the judgement of the Honble Supreme
.
Court in Surajmani (supra decided on 06.02.2025),
which is a judgement in rem, a right was conferred
on daily wagers for conferment of work charge
status with notional benefits from due date till
day. After passing of judgement on 06.02.2025 in
Surajmani (supra), which is a judgement in rem,
once a right had accrued in favour of the appellant
-writ petitioner for work charge status with higher
pay fixation from due date till day, is a recurring
and continuing cause coupled with the fact that
once the Respondent University has granted work
charged status to another similarly placed incumbent
on 19.09.2023, Annexure P-2 and based on the
judgement in the case of Surajmani, (supra) even
this Court has directed the Respondent University
to extend similar benefits notionally in LPA No 83
of 2023, CSKHPKV vs Bishan Dass, decided on
11.03.2025. Accordingly, based on cumulative factors
as detailed above and subsequent events, including
- 37 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
the declaration of law, by a judgement in rem
in Surajmani (supra) on 06.02.2025, therefore the
claim of the appellant-writ petitioner accruing from
.
the aforesaid judgement could not be negated and
therefore, the plea of the Respondent counsel is turned
down.
12. Third contention of Learned Respondent
Counsel is that the implementation orders dated
16.09.2023, {Annexure P-2} giving work charge status
to another employee namely, Sarwan Kumar, had
not attained finality, as the same was an outcome
of CWP No 1396 of 2019, which was subject matter
of pending SLP © No 28840 of 2023, CSKHPKV versus
Sarwan Kumar.
The above contention of the Respondent
University, in considered view of this Court, is not
tenable, for the reason, that the above i.e. SLP
(C) No. 28840 of 2023 [as in Annexure P-2], filed
by Respondent-University in the case of Sarwan
Kumar (supra) stands decided along with the case
of Surajmani [SLP(C) 23016 of 2023 converted as
Civil Appeal No 1595 of 2025 on 06.02.2025];
- 38 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
by affirming that the Respondent-Employee therein,
shall be entitled for grant of work charge status
from the date of completion of eight years of service.
.
Thus, in view of the mandate of the Honble Apex
Court, the contention of Learned Counsel for the
University is devoid of any merit. Resultantly, the
appellant-writ petitioner is entitled to the benefits
accruing from orders/judgement, which have attained
13. to
finality, without discrimination.
Learned Respondent Counsel contends that
based on subsequent events, including the judgement
in case of Surajmani (supra), the claim for work
charge status, be restricted only to "notional benefits",
instead of consequential benefits, as prayed by the
appellant-writ petitioner.
13(i). For appreciating the contention of Learned
Respondent Counsel, it is necessary to have a recap
of Paras 8, 10 and 12 of the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal
Pradesh versus Surajmani [Civil Appeal No 1595
of 2025, decided on 06.02.2025], reads as under:-
"8. However, in order to allay the apprehension
of the State as expressed thereunder
- 39 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
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.
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...
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]."
13(ii). While deciding a similar matter, the Hon'ble
- 40 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
Supreme Court mandated 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, that the judgment in case of Surajmani
(supra), is a judgment in rem and the directions
contained in Surajmani (supra) would apply mutatis
mutandis in all the cases having same facts, in
the following terms:-
r "5.
It
the
is
separate
experienced
judgment
orders
in
which is in rem, but in view of the
that
passed
despite
Surajmani
by the
passing
(supra)
High
Court, several special leave petitions
are being filed by the State. Considering
the same, it is to be expressed that in
our view, when a judgment in rem
has been passed, it would apply mutatis
mutandis in all cases having similar
facts and filing separate special leave
petitions is in futility. The State may
take note of this fact and do the needful."
13(iii). Since the judgment in case of Surajmani
(supra) is a "judgment in rem", which declares the
law, covering twin aspects, firstly, the entitlement
of daily wagers for work charge status from the
date of completion of 8 years of daily waged service
and secondly, what benefits were to accrue viz
- 41 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
is, actual or notional, upon the grant of work charge
status.
On the first aspect, the entitlement of
.
daily wagers for grant of work charged status from
the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily
wage service is in consonance with the declaration
of law, in case of Surajmani, (supra), binds the State
Authorities, including the Respondent-University in
all respects.
On the second aspect, regarding prayer
or claim for "all consequential benefits" or "restricted
consequential benefits for three years" is concerned
the same is liable to be interfered with on various
counts. Firstly, the prayer or claim to grant all
consequential benefits or the restricted consequential
benefits is ex-facie contrary to the law declared by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Surajmani
(supra) which limits the relief to "notional benefits"
only ; and secondly, the direction to limit relief
to "notional benefits" was based on findings recorded
in Para 8 of the judgment in Surajmani (supra),
mandating that the daily wagers who were not
- 42 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
regularly appointed or meaning thereby, who were
appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme should
not be granted extra benefits, which will burden
.
the State Exchequer and it is in this backdrop,
that the succor was given to the State, by modifying
the orders passed by Learned State Administrative
Tribunal, giving "all consequential benefits", which
were upheld by the Division Bench of this Court,
to "notional benefits" by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Ashwani Kumar [Civil Appeal No.
5753 of 2019, decided on 22.07.2019]. Further,
this principle of "notional benefits" stands reinforced
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Surajmani
[Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, arising from SLP
(C) 23016 of 2023, decided on 06.02.2025]; and
thirdly, the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in cases of Ashwani Kumar and Surajmani
(supra), limiting relief to "notional benefits" cannot
be permitted to be tinkered with in any eventuality ;
and fourthly, grant of "all consequential benefits"
or "restricted consequential benefits" shall amount
to giving leverage or premium to those daily wagers
- 43 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
who were not regularly appointed or were appointed
dehors the Constitutional Scheme embodied in Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India i.e. without
.
there being a sanctioned post, without advertising
the post, without inviting applications from eligible
candidates and without determining the comparative
merit of all eligible candidates in-accordance with
the Constitutional Scheme. Financial incentives i.e.
"all consequential benefits" or "restricted consequential
benefits" cannot be extended to those daily wagers
who were not regularly appointed or were appointed
dehors the established ethos of public employment
by a back door method. Right to "all consequential
benefits or restricted consequential benefits" can only
accrue to an incumbent including daily wager who
is appointed in accordance with the Constitutional
Scheme, which has been outlined by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka vs Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 01} and
the same stands reaffirmed in case of Surajmani
(supra) also; and fifthly, mere filing of a petition(s)
or its pendency before State Administrative Tribunal
- 44 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
or this Court for work charge status, by a daily
wager who was not regularly appointed in accordance
with the established ethos of public appointment
.
or was appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme
will not confer any legally enforceable right on such
daily wager for "all consequential benefits" or "restricted
consequential benefits" as the case may be ; and
lastly, foreseeing the eventuality that some of the
daily wagers were granted work charge status with
"all consequential benefits or restricted consequential
benefits" by the Respondent Authorities, despite that
such daily wagers were not regularly appointed or
were appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme
therefore, in order to carve out parity and to obviate
the charge of discrimination inter-se daily wagers
as a class, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 11
of judgment in Surajmani (supra) reserved liberty
for Respondent Authorities to recover excess benefits
in installments, from those daily wagers who were
not regularly appointed or were appointed dehors
the Constitutional Scheme but were either granted
"all consequential monetary benefits or restricted
- 45 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
monetary consequential benefits", by entitling all
such daily wagers for work charge status, by limiting
relief to "notional benefits, in tune with the law
.
declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Ashwani Kumar (supra), which stands reinforced
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Surajmani
(supra) and recently reiterated in the case of Janak
Dev Sharma (supra).
14.
petitioner
r Learned
states
IDENTICAL ISSUE DECIDED:
Counsel
that an
for
identical
the appellant-writ
issue stands
decided in LPA No 83 of 2025, CSKHPKV vs Bishan
Dass, and other similar cases wherein, work charge
benefit was directed to be granted from due date
but by limiting the relief to "notional benefits" in
the light of the mandate of the Honble Supreme
Court in the case of Surajmani (supra). In these
circumstances, this Court sees, no reason, as to why
the appellant-writ petitioner be not extended similar
relief(s). Ordered accordingly.
In another identical Intra Court Appeal,
LPA No. 541 of 2025, State of Himachal Pradesh
- 46 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
vs Krishani Devi, this Court held the Respondent
-employee entitled for work charged status from the
date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage
.
service; whereas, the directions regarding "restricted
consequential benefits" for three years prior to filing
of petition were set-aside by modifying the relief to
"notional benefits".
CONCLUSION:
15. In the instant appeal, the appellant-writ
petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis in 1993
but with continuous service of 240 days from 1994
and thereafter. He completed 8 years of continuous
daily waged service on 31.12.2001 and on completion
of this service, he became eligible and entitled
for work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2002. This benefit
was given to many other daily wagers but was
denied to the appellant-writ petitioner herein. Nothing
has been placed on record to establish that he
was regularly appointed on daily wage basis or
such appointment was made in accordance with the
established ethos as per the Constitutional Scheme
as discussed above. In these circumstances, this Court
- 47 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
has no hesitation to hold that once the appellant
-writ petitioner was not regularly appointed on daily
wages in-accordance with the mandate of public
.
employment embodied in the Constitutional Scheme
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
and therefore, though actual benefit of work charge
status will accrue to the appellant-writ petitioner
from due date, but on notional basis, without any
past arrears.
Based on above discussion, the Impugned
Judgment dated 10.06.2024, disallowing work charge
status to the appellant-writ petitioner from the date
of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage
service is quashed and set-aside. However, upon
the grant of work charge status, the resultant relief
shall only be limited to "notional benefits" so as
to remain within the four corners of the judgments
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases
of Ashwani Kumar (supra), reinforced in Surajmani
(supra), and recently reiterated in Janak Dev Sharma
(supra).
16. No other point was pressed/argued.
- 48 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
DIRECTIONS:
17. In view of the above discussions and for
the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant Letters
.
Patent Appeal is allowed, in the following terms:-
(i) Instant Appeal, LPA No 184 of 2024, is
allowed;
(ii) Impugned Judgment dated 10.06.2024
passed by the Learned Single Judge in
CWP No 4983 of 2024, Naresh Kumar
versus CSKHPKV & others; entitling the
appellant-writ petitioner for work charge
status from date of completion of 8
r years of continuous daily waged service
is quashed and set-aside ;
(iii) Respondent Authorities are directed to
confer work-charged status as Lab Helper
or DPL (Class-IV) w.e.f. 01.01.2002 or
like due date from date of completion
of 8 years of continuous daily waged
service in applicable time-pay scale by
counting daily wage service w.e.f. 1994;
(iv) Sequel to direction no (iii) above; and
in the light of judgements in Ashwani
Kumar, Surajmani and Janak Dev
Sharma (supra); appellant-writ petitioner
shall be entitled to relief of "notional
benefits" from due date, but without any
past arrears;
- 49 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 )
(v) Respondent Authorities shall comply with
the above directions, within six weeks
from receipt of certified/downloaded copy
of this judgment;
.
(vi) Parties to bear their respective costs.
In the aforesaid terms, the Letters Patent
Appeal and all pending miscellaneous application(s) if
any, shall stand disposed of, accordingly.
(G.S. Sandhawalia)
Chief Justice
August 27, 2025
to (Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
[Bhardwaj/tm]
