Himachal Pradesh High Court
Tej Singh vs Hpsebl & Anr on 26 May, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP Nos.8630 of 2025 a/w connected matters
Decided on: 26th May, 2025
_________________________________________________________________
1. CWP No. 8630 of 2025
Tej Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
HPSEBL & Anr. ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
2. CWP No. 8634 of 2025
Sarwan Khan ....Petitioner
Versus
HPSEBL & Anr. ...Respondents
3. CWP No. 8636 of 2025
Onkar Chand ....Petitioner
Versus
HPSEBL & Anr. ...Respondents
4. CWP No. 8638 of 2025
Meera Devi ....Petitioner
Versus
HPSEBL & Anr. ...Respondents
Hem Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
HPSEBL & Anr. ...Respondents
Parkash Chand ....Petitioner
Versus
HPSEBL & Anr. ...Respondents
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Whether approved for reporting?
_________________________________________________________________
For the petitioners: Mr. Bonit Prakash, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar & Ms.
Vandana Misra, Advocates, for the
respective respondents.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar and Ms.
Vandana Misra, learned counsel, accept notice on behalf of
the respective respondents.
2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of
almost common relief, which has been extracted from CWP
No. 8630 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."
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
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 respondentBoard
had contended that the case in hand was distinct from
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Surajmani &
Anr.3 as in the respondentBoard, work charge
establishment was abolished in 1986, therefore, the
directions given in Suranmani3 cannot be applied in the
respondentBoard. 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
SLP(C) Nos. 10719-10720/2025, decided on 16.04.2025
Civil appeal No. 1595 of 2025, decided on 06.02.2025
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
'workcharged' 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 Nanak 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 26, 2025
R.Atal
