Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ajay Kumar vs Hpsebl & Ors on 4 July, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No.10632 of 2025
Decided on: 4th July, 2025
_________________________________________________________________
.
Ajay Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
HPSEBL & Ors. ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1 Whether approved for reporting?
_________________________________________________________________
For the petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate .
For the respondents: Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar,
Advocate.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, learned
counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the
respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of
following substantive reliefs:-
"i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be
issued directing the Respondents to confer upon the
petitioner work charge status after completion of eight
years of daily waged service w.e.f 01.01.1999 with all
consequential benefits in view of the judgment passed
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
in C.W.P. No.3111/2016 titled as State of H.P. and
others Vs. Ashwani Kumar in the interest of justice
ii. That the directions may kindly be issued to the
respondents to pay the pension to the petitioner an hold
.
the petitioner entitled to pension as per CCS pension
Rules 1976 on the basis of service rendered as work
charge employee in the interest of justice. "
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the case of the petitioner and the relief prayed for by him are
covered under decision rendered in The Himachal Pradesh
State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Nanak Chand &
Ors.2 In the aforesaid case, the respondent-Board had
contended that the case in hand was distinct from State of
Himachal Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Surajmani & Anr. 3 as
in the respondent-Board, work charge establishment was
abolished in 1986, therefore, the directions given in
Suranmani3 cannot be applied in the respondent-Board. The
Hon'ble Apex Court rejected the contentions and held that
the judgment in Surajmani3 squarely applies and the
directions issued therein shall applicable mutatis mutandis to
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board as well . Relevant
portion of the decision reads as under:-
SLP(C) Nos. 10719-10720/2025, decided on 16.04.2025
Civil appeal No. 1595 of 2025, decided on 06.02.2025
"2. In counter to the said argument, in the counter affidavit,
Standing orders of the Himachal Pradesh State
Electricity Board Industrial Establishment framed in
exercise of the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948
.
have been shown whereby Clause 5(b) makes it clear
that the Board shall have the following class of
workmen in different establishments. Clause 5(b)
indicate work establishment having work charged
work commission. The said fact has not been
controverted except to say in the affidavit that they
have abolished the work charged establishment in the
year1986. In the list of date also, it is stated that the
work charge establishment has been revised in 1987.
3. Considering all these aspects, there is no reason to
take a different view from the case of Surajmani
(supra). The operative portion of the judgment of
Surajmani is reproduced for ready reference :
"10. For the cumulative reasons aforestated, we are
of the considered view that the dicta laid down
by this Court vide order dated 22.07.2019 in
Ashwani Kumar's (Supra) case which is based
on the judgment of Mool Raj Upadhyaya
(Supra) holds the field and would also be
applicable to the Respondents herein who had
approached the Tribunal or the High Court
seeking similar relief. As such, the
Respondents shall be entitled for grant of
'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 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 Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi [ (2006) 4 SCC
.
1]."
4. In our view, the judgment of Surajmani squarely
applies and the said directions shall be applicable
mutatis mutandis in the case of Himachal Pradesh
State Electricity Board also."
4. In view of above, respondents are directed to
consider the case of the petitioner for grant of reliefs prayed
for by him in light of decision rendered in Nanak Chand2,
within a period six weeks from today. The decision so taken
be communicated to the petitioner.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above
terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
July 4, 2025 Judge
R.Atal
