Jagdish Chand vs Hpsebl & Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 5945 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Jagdish Chand vs Hpsebl & Anr on 23 May, 2025

Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP Nos.8544 and 8546 of 2025 Decided on: 23rd May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________

1. CWP No. 8544 of 2025

Jagdish Chand ....Petitioner

Versus HPSEBL & Anr. ...Respondents _________________________________________________________________

2. CWP No. 8546 of 2025

Mohan Singh ....Petitioner

Versus HPSEBL & Anr. ...Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting?

_________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Bonit Prakash, Advocate.

For the respondents: Ms. Sona Gupta, Advocate vice Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Ms. Sona Gupta, Advocate, appearing vice

Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, learned Counsel, appears and

waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents in both

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

the petitions.

2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of

almost common relief, which has been extracted from CWP

No. 8544 of 2025:-

"(i) That the respondents may be ordered to grant work charge status to the petitioner, on completion of eight years of service, service, with all benefits incidental thereof."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the cases of the petitioners and the relief prayed for by them

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

SLP(C) Nos. 10719-10720/2025, decided on 16.04.2025

Civil appeal No. 1595 of 2025, decided on 06.02.2025

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 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 cases of the petitioners for grant of relief prayed

for by them in light of decision rendered in Nank Chand2,

within a period six weeks from today. The decision so taken

be communicated to the petitioners.

The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above

terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if

any.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 23, 2025 R.Atal