Naresh Kumar v. Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar & Ors.

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, 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} light of 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 Pradesh [CWP No. 2735 of 2010, upheld in SLP (C) No. 8830-8869 of 2011 on 15.01.2015]. In another matter, the issue as to whether for conferring work charge status 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:- and, Department respondents thus, benefit “21. With respect to ground taken by Department is not having work-charged establishment period of service as a work charged employee cannot be extended petitioner, in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case an the Chief affidavit was Secretary Himachal formulating a Pradesh, Scheme for granting work charged status to all daily-waged employees, filed by the Government is apt to record that - 14 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 ) the State of Himachal serving Pradesh, in all Departments, irrespective of the fact that Department is/was having work-charged establishment or not. formulated the scheme

#22. In Gauri Dutt’s case, it has been Mool Raj Upadhayaya case is applicable to daily-waged employees working 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 that granting of work-charged status would mean that an employee would get regular scale of pay. it has also been observed State

#23. Upholding the order passed by the erstwhile H.P. 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 Similarly, SLP 2011 preferred by the State in Rakesh Kumar’s case also stands dismissed by the Supreme Court on 15.01.2015. on 22.07.2019. (C) No. 8830-8869 of

#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 ) for any other 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 service or debar him from getting the benefit of length of service 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 and valid reason. Therefore, it is a period interregnum daily-wage service and regularization, which is altogether temporary different establishment of work charge, 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 work but without regularization want of creation of post by Government for his regularization /regular appointment. Therefore, work such cases and the charge of a daily is created thereon to avoid his disengagement a daily-wager can be dispensed with from service. for reasons upon which for availability of is always available

#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 ) titled as Reema Devi Vs. charged establishment does not exist in the respondent Department, learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred pronouncements of this High Court 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, State of H.P. and others; and CWPOA No. 5660 of 2019, 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 favour of the Court. titled Ghanshyam fact, issue was to pronouncement

#28. According 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 Rakesh Kumar’s case, this not adjudicated but without considering Mool Raj’s case and without assigning any reason, a passing observation was issue has been made. Whereas adjudicated and decided in subsequent case. judgment 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 in Ashwani Kumar’s - 17 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 ) for conferment -Department has no effect on rights of petitioner of work-charged status after completion of 8 years the Government as well as verdict of Rakesh Kumar’s case. in terms of Policy of is not prerequisite.

#29. For conferment of work-charged status, work-charged establishment in the Department The same has also been affirmed by the Principal Division Bench of 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, turned down and impugned judgement dismissing the writ petition is set-aside. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT-WRIT PETITIONER:

#8. First contention of Learned Counsel - 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 issued by State Authorities, which includes grant of work 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 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 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 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 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 benefit to the appellant-writ petitioner reveals hostile discrimination within one homogenous class of daily wagers, who are covered by judgements 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 the past (as 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 further underscored judgment would necessarily 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 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 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 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, its wisdom, having subsequent schemes having - 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 fairly submit application was withdrawn on the ground of subsequent schemes having been formulated and implemented by 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 State having accepted judgment of Ashwani Kumar (Supra), implemented the same and is in this background, the High Court in the impugned order has observed - 26 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 ) 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 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. the reason in their the same

22.2. However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action cases and acquiesced and woke up after long delay only because 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 valid ground to dismiss their claim. the acquiescence, would be a their counterparts

22.3. However, this exception may not apply - 28 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 ) 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 Court has mandated the benefit of a judicial pronouncement, which is a judgement in rem, is extendable to all similarly placed incumbents, in Chairman/ Managing Director Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and others versus Ram Gopal, (2021) 13 SCC 225, as under:- benefit

#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 judicial pronouncement to all similarly placed employees without forcing each person individually knock the doors of courts. This distinction between operation of delay and laches to judgments delivered lucidly captured in State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, ……” in personam, rem and a - 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:-

#14. It is a well settled principle of law that where a citizen aggrieved by an action government department has approached the court and obtained a 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 ) employment under 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 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 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 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 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 they are similarly situated, since the judgment they seek to rely on, was passed the case of certain applicants alone who moved the court ? We think that would be a very unfair scenario. Accepting the stand of respondents in this case would result this Court putting imprimatur on an unreasonable stand adopted by the authorities.

#23. We hold that the appellant was wrongly excluded consideration when other similarly situated officers were considered 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.” INVOLVING HIGHER PAY FIXATION CLAIM 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 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 regularization of services (in 2007) will neither take away nor divest a daily wager of his right 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 view of the discussion made in Paras 7 and 8 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 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 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 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 finality, without discrimination.

#13. 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 the State as expressed thereunder - 39 - ( 2025:HHC:28904 ) interest of safeguard conferred the State which otherwise would have exchequer with extra burdened benefits 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 petitioners / appellants therein would be entitled to the notional benefits of the order passed by the Tribunal and accordingly disposed of the said appeal. is based on

#10. For the cumulative reasons afore stated we are of the considered view that the dicta laid down by this Court vide order in Ashwani Kumar’s dated 22.07.2019 (Supra) case which judgment of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (Supra) field and would also be holds the 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 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 further underscored a judgment would necessarily 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 of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1].” law, as enumerated in the case 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, the following terms:- “5. It is experienced that despite passing 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 petitions 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 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 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 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 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). IDENTICAL ISSUE DECIDED:

#14. Learned Counsel the appellant-writ petitioner states that an identical 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 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 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 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 (Ranjan Sharma) Judge August 27, 2025 [Bhardwaj/tm]