Himachal Pradesh High Court
_________________________________________________________________ vs Hpsebl & Anr on 2 May, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No.7152 of 2024
Decided on: 2nd May, 2025
_________________________________________________________________
Baldev Chand ....Petitioner
Versus
HPSEBL & Anr. ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1 Whether approved for reporting?
_________________________________________________________________
For the petitioner: Mr. Abhyendra Gupta, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar,
Advocate.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Even though the respondents have not filed the
reply, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the
parties, matter is taken up for disposal at this state.
2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of
following substantive relief:-
"(i) That the respondents may be ordered to grant
work charge status to the petitioner, from the date
he completed 10 years service, with all benefits
incidental thereof."
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
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:-
"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
SLP(C) Nos. 10719-10720/2025, decided on 16.04.2025
Civil appeal No. 1595 of 2025, decided on 06.02.2025
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 relief prayed for
by him in light of decision rendered in Nank Chand2, within a
period six weeks from today. The decision so taken be
communicated to the petitioner.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also
to stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge
May 2, 2025
R.Atal
