State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Kanta Khatri & Ors.

dismissing the writ petition. 2(iii). Notably, the deceased-writ petitioner died on 12.08.2018 and his legal heirs, namely Kanta Khatri, Minakshi Khatri and Surinder Khatri, being widow, daughter and son respectively were substituted as writ petitioners before the Writ Court. In Rejoinder, the newly substituted writ petitioners-legal heirs of the deceased-writ petitioner reiterated their claim for regularization/work charge status from date of completion of 8 years of continuous service as daily wager with the prayer to quash the rejection orders dated 01.12.2017 [Annexure A-8], with claim for releasing all consequential benefits. Learned Counsel further contends that grant of regularization is subject to availability of vacancy whereas the grant of work charge status is a mere grant of higher pay for which there is neither the requirement of a post nor any cadre and therefore, the writ petitioner is entitled for work charged status the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service. - 8 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 26.05.2023 BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE:

#3. CWPOA No. 4612 of 2020 filed by deceased -original writ petitioner-employee [Nar Dass], wherein the Respondents-Legal Heirs were substituted, was decided by the Learned Single Judge on 26.05.2023, by directing the State Authorities-Appellants to grant work charge status to deceased Employee [Nar Dass] from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service, along with consequential benefits for three years prior to the date of filing the writ petition, in the year 2010, in the following terms:- “8. Consequently, in view of above, the present petition is allowed and order dated 1.12.2017 (Annexure P-8), whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected, is quashed and set-aside and respondents are directed to grant work charge status to the petitioner from the date he completed eight years service as daily wagers in the department along with consequential benefits. Since petitioner approached competent court of law for grant of aforesaid benefit the year 2010, he is held entitled to consequential benefits pursuant to his being conferred work charge status from the date - 9 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) three years prior to the date of filing of the petition in the year, 2010.” CHALLENGE TO IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IN INSTANT APPEAL:

#4. In instant Intra-Court Appeal, the State Authorities have assailed the Impugned Judgment dated 26.05.2023, on the grounds, firstly, that the Learned Single Judge had ignored the pleadings and therefore, the judgment being perverse was liable to be set-aside; and secondly, the issue regarding conferment of work-charged status on completion of 8 years of daily-wage service, which was the subject matter in LPA No.165 of 2021, State of Himachal Pradesh & Others versus Surajmani and another has not attained finality as the aforesaid decision has been assailed by the State Authorities before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 23016 of 2023, In re: State of Himachal Pradesh & Others vs Surajmani and another which was pending ; and thirdly, the State has taken a policy decision on 30.07.2013 and another decision on 24.09.2016 for regularizing the Class-IV Daily Waged Beldars engaged during 1995 to 1997 whereas no such - 10 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) decision was taken in case of Class-III Daily Wagers and therefore, the Respondent-writ petitioner, who was Class-III Road Roller Driver was not regularized; and lastly, the Impugned Judgment giving restricted monetary benefits for 3 years prior to filing of writ petitioner in 2010 was erroneous, being contrary to the law, mandated in State of Himachal Pradesh versus Surajmani and other connected matters [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025 decided on

06.02.2025].

#5. Heard, Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Learned Deputy Advocate General, for the Appellants-State and Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Learned Counsel, for the Respondents and have perused the writ records.

#6. Factual matrix borne out from the material on record and the earlier litigations reveals that the Respondent-original writ petitioner and now his substituted legal representatives, primarily have twin claims, firstly conferment of work charged status as Road Roller Driver (Class-III) from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous service with all benefits and secondly, for regularization as a Road - 11 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) Roller Driver (Class-III). In this backdrop this Court proceeds to examine the claim for initially for work charge status and in latter part of this judgement for regularization hereinunder. A. MATTER IN ISSUE COVERED BY JUDGMENT IN SURAJMANI [CIVIL APPEAL No.1595 OF 2025] DECIDED ON 06.02.2025: CLAIM FOR WORK CHARGE STATUS:

#7. The issue involved in 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 at the insistence of the Learned State Counsel, this Court proceeds to examine the matter, at this stage itself. ANALYSIS OF THE GROUNDS CONTENTIONS RAISED: IN LPA AND

#8. First contention of Learned State Counsel is that the Impugned Judgment dated 26.05.2023 has been passed by Learned Single Judge by ignoring the pleadings is liable to be set- aside. The above contention is misconceived, for the reason, that the Impugned Judgment takes into - 12 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) account the pleadings, revealing the factual matrix that though the original writ petitioner (Nar Dass, now deceased) a person of Nepali origin was engaged as daily wager in 1996 and had completed 240 days from the year 1997 onwards but he was neither regularized nor granted work charged status till his death on 12.08.2018, despite having rendered more than 21 years of continuous daily waged service in the light of the judgments of this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others along with connected matters; and was reiterated CWP No. 3111 of 2016, State of Himachal Pradesh versus Ashwani Kumar, mandating that for grant of work charge status, the work charge establishment was not a pre-requisite nor would the conversion of work charged employees would make the existence of such establishment non-existent. The conferment of work charge status was reiterated by this Court in LPA No.165 of 2021, State of Himachal Pradesh versus Surajmani and another. Based on this, the Learned Single Judge directed the State Authorities - 13 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) to grant work-charged status to the Respondent- original writ petitioner from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily-wage service after taking into account the material on record and the factual and legal matrix and therefore, the impugned judgement does not warrant any interference in fact- situation of instant proceedings.

#9. Second contention of Learned State Counsel issue regarding conferment of work charged status from the date of completion of 8 years of daily waged service, which was decided in LPA No.165 of 2021, State of HP & Others versus Surajmani and another, has not attained finality as the State Authorities had filed SLP(C) No. 23016 of 2023, which is pending before the Honble Supreme Court. Though on the face value, this contention appears to be attractive but events subsequent to filing of instant appeal indicates that this contention does not holds good any more. The present Letters Patent Appeal was filed along with an application for condonation of delay on 12.08.2024, and matter - 14 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) was listed on 23.10.2024, when, the notice was issued to non-applicant/respondent-writ petitioner and upon appearance by Learned Counsel and filing of reply to application for delay on 12.12.2024 after hearing the counsels, the delay was condoned on 12.03.2025 and LPA was finally taken up for adjudication at his stage. However, on query by this Court, Learned State Counsel informs that the SLP (C) No.23016 of 2023 [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025], In re: State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr vs Surajmani and other connected cases, stands decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 06.02.2025, entitling the daily wagers for work charged status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service. Since, the SLP in case of Surajmani [supra] stands decided, therefore, the Impugned Judgment dated 26.05.2023, directing the appellants to confer work-charge status to the Respondent-writ petitioner herein from the date of completion of 8 years of daily wage service [w.e.f. 01.01.2005], does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.

#10. Third contention of Learned State Counsel - 15 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) is that work charge status cannot be granted after abolition of work charged status in case of Class-III daily wagers, on 01.04.2001 including the Road Roller Drivers. The above plea is misconceived for the reason that firstly, the right acquired by a daily for work charged status in terms of the mandate of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra) can neither be negated nor taken away by the State Authorities ; and secondly, the contention of the Learned State Counsel cannot sustain, as the same would amount to depriving the Respondent-original writ petitioner of the benefits of the mandate of the judgement in case of Surajmani, is a judgement in rem and is binding on the State Authorities and Court(s) and thirdly, even rejection orders dated 21.11.2014 {Annexure A-6} and 1.12.2017 (Annexure A-7), do not address the claim for work charged status; and fourthly, once the State Authorities in the appellant- department has granted work charge status to other Class-III daily wagers, including road roller drivers - 16 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) from the date of completion of 8 years of daily waged service with higher pay benefits therefore, the denial of similar work charged status as a Road Roller Driver (Class-III) with higher pay fixation to respondent-writ petitioner herein is patently discriminatory, illegal and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and when, concept of work charge status, in Himachal Pradesh introduced by the State Authorities, which was also approved by the Honble Apex Court and therefore, impugned Judgment granting work charged status does not suffer from any infirmity. CONCEPT OF WORK CHARGE STATUS IN STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH: 10(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 the prolonged daily wage service, the State Government formulated a “scheme for the betterment of skilled and unskilled daily wage/muster-roll workers in all government departments” by putting them in the time scale of - 17 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) pay as applicable to corresponding lowest grade in the government. Upon grant of time scale, these daily wagers were termed as “work charge employees.” The aforesaid scheme was approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs State of Himachal Pradesh (1994) Supp (2) SCC 316, mandating that daily wage/muster-roll workers were to be appointed as work charged employees, in the time scale of pay applicable to corresponding lowest grade in the government from the date they complete the 10 years continuous daily wage service. Later on, the State Authorities notified a policy on

03.04.2000 for conferring work charge status to the daily wagers on completion of 8 years of continuous service as on 31.3.2000 and this policy remained in vogue till issuance of another policy on 09.06.2004. In backdrop of these policies, the issue as to which the daily wagers would be governed by 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 - 18 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) completed one year of continuous service with {240 days service} during the year 1993 or prior to 31.12.1993 would be granted work charged status from the date they complete 10 years of continuous service in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra) whereas, those daily wagers who were engaged /appointed on or after 01.01.1994 and had rendered continuous service thereafter were to be governed by 8 years policy by granting work-charge status from the date they complete 8 years of continuous daily wage service. LAW OF THIS COURT ON CONCEPT OF WORK CHARGE STATUS IS ALSO PARI-MATERIA TO DECISION IN SURAJMANI: 10(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 to whether work charge establishment exists or not in the case of Pritam Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh, CWPOA No.7497of 2020, decided - 19 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) on 29.7.2024, in the following terms:- “21. With respect to ground taken by respondents Department Department is not having work-charged establishment and, thus, benefit period of service as a work charged employee cannot be extended petitioner, is apt to record that in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case an affidavit was filed by the Chief Secretary the Government Himachal Pradesh, formulating a Scheme for granting work charged status to all daily-waged employees, serving the State of Himachal Pradesh, in all Departments, irrespective of the fact that Department is/was having work-charged establishment or not.

#22. In Gauri Dutt’s case, it has been the scheme formulated 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 it has also been observed that granting of work-charged status would mean that an employee would get regular scale of pay.

#23. Upholding the order passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative - 20 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) 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 on 22.07.2019. Similarly, SLP (C) No. 8830-8869 of 2011 preferred by the State in Rakesh Kumar’s case also stands dismissed by the Supreme Court on 15.01.2015.

#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 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 - 21 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) is for want of regular vacancy in the department or for any other and valid reason. Therefore, it is a period interregnum daily-wage service and regularization, which is altogether different temporary 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 for availability of work but without regularization want of creation of post by Government for his regularization /regular appointment. Therefore, work is always available such cases and the charge of a daily is created thereon to avoid his disengagement for reasons upon which a daily-wager can be dispensed with from service.

#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- charged establishment does not exist - 22 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) 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, titled as Reema Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others; and CWPOA No. 5660 of 2019, titled Ghanshyam 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.

#28. According to pronouncement 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 fact, Rakesh Kumar’s case, this issue was not adjudicated but without considering Mool Raj’s case and without assigning any reason, a passing observation was - 23 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) made. Whereas issue has been adjudicated and decided in subsequent judgment in Ashwani Kumar’s case. 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- Department has no effect on rights of petitioner for conferment of work-charged status after completion of 8 years in terms of Policy of the Government as well as verdict of Rakesh Kumar’s case.

#29. For conferment of work-charged status, work-charged establishment in the Department is not prerequisite. 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.” 10(iii). Even, the issue regarding conferment of work charge status to daily wagers on completion of 8 years continuous service stands adjudicated by this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar [CWP No. of 2010, against which SLP (C) No. 8830-8869 of 2011 on 15.01.2015] was also dismissed. The - 24 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) matter regarding grant of work charge status from date of completion of 8 years of daily wage service came up before the Division Bench of this Court, in CWP No. 3111 of 2016, State of Himachal Pradesh vs Ashwani Kumar whereby, for conferment of work charge status there was neither the need for work charge establishment nor its cessation or abolition would make any difference and even there was no requirement for creation or availability of a post for conferment of such work charge status. Feeling aggrieved, the State Authorities assailed the judgement passed by the Division Bench of this Court before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh versus Ashwani Kumar, [Civil Appeal No 5753 of 2019, decided on 22.07.2019], and while deciding the Civil Appeal, the directions passed by Learned 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 entitling daily wagers for work charge status with “notional benefits” only. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court - 25 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) has reinforced the directions in case of Ashwani Kumar [supra], in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh versus Surajmani [supra], [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, SLP (C) 23016 of 2023, arising from LPA No. 165 of 2021, decided on 06.02.2025], entitling the daily wagers for work charge status with notional benefits only. In above backdrop and in the light of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Mool Raj Upadhyaya, Gehar Singh, Ashwani Kumar and Surajmani [supra] and the judgments of this Court in the case of Gauri Dutt, Rakesh Kumar and in the case of Pritam Singh {CWPOA No 7497 of 2020, decided on 29.7.2024}; the right and entitlement of Respondent-original writ petitioner and other similar daily wagers/muster-roll workers serving in all government departments for work charged status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service cannot be permitted to be abridged, curtailed, restricted or taken away in any manner and to any extent, by the State Authorities. Accordingly, Impugned Judgment passed - 26 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) by Learned Single Judge, entitling the Respondent- writ petitioner for work-charge status date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service being in conformity with the mandate of law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra), which stands reinforced in the case of Surajmani (supra), which is a judgement in rem, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference in the instant proceedings.

#11. Fourth contention of Learned State Counsel that Learned Single Judge had allowed the petition by ignoring delay and laches. The plea of delay and latches is totally misconceived in view of the claim of the Respondent-writ petitioner was turned down by issuing the rejection orders on 21.11.2014, and on

1.12.2017 [Annexure A-6 and Annexure A-8] coupled the Respondent-original writ petitioner had filed multiple writ petitions since the year 2010. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has mandated in Para 12 of the judgement in case of - 27 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) Surajmani (supra) 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

26.05.2025, reiterating judgment case of Surajmani (supra), is a judgment in rem with further mandate that the directions contained in Surajmani (supra) would apply mutatis mutandis in all the 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 - 28 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) 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.” 11(i). Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra) has outlined that 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 the 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 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 - 29 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) 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 the State cannot adopt pick and choose policy. DECLARATION OF LAW BASED ON JUDGEMENT IN REM IS BINDING: 11(ii). In above backdrop, once the judgement in the case of Surajmani [supra] is a judgement in rem, declaring the law, entitling the daily wagers including the Respondent-original writ petitioner (since deceased) for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged - 30 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) continuous service is binding on the State Authorities as well as all Courts. The benefits flowing judgement in rem cannot be negated or defeated by invoking plea of delay and laches, when, State Authorities have granted work charge status to many other similarly placed persons in various government departments including the appellant department. The appellants-State Authorities cannot be permitted 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 charge of discrimination so as to give effect to the judgement in rem, without insisting for or without invoking the plea of delay and laches, in the light of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of U.P versus Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, in the 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 extending benefit. Not doing so would amount - 31 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) 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.

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 in their cases and acquiesced the same and woke up after long delay only because the reason their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then employees cannot the benefit of 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 the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.

22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court - 32 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation cast upon 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.” Negating the plea of delay and laches, the benefit of the judgement in rem was extended to all similarly placed incumbents, by the Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman/ Managing Director Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and Others versus Ram Gopal, (2021) 13 SCC 225, as under:-

#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 benefit a 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 rem and in personam, lucidly captured in State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, ……” - 33 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) Once a principle of law stands declared by mandating the judgement to be judgement 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 the following terms:-

#14. It is a well settled principle of law that where a citizen aggrieved by an action of the 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: the Single Judge and

#19. The writ petitions and the appeals must succeed. We set aside the impugned judgments of Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and direct that each of the three transferee banks should the excluded take over employees on the same terms conditions respective banking companies prior to amalgamation. The employees would be entitled to the employment under - 34 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) employees for all including salary and perks benefit of continuity of service purposes throughout the period. We leave it open to the transferee banks to take such action as they consider proper against 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…. in accordance with

#16. No doubt, exceptional 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 an 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 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 - 35 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) 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: 11(iii). Contention of the Learned State Counsel regarding delay and laches is without force when, grant of work charge status, involves higher pay fixation during service from due date of completion of 8 years of daily waged service and the resultant benefit of higher pay for retiral benefits, including family pension to the Respondent-legal heirs of the deceased original writ petitioner herein, which - 36 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) based on a recurring and continuing cause every month. Moreover, once the Honble Supreme Court has mandated that the judgement in Surajmani [supra], is a judgment in rem, entitling daily wagers 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 Respondent-original writ petitioner. Denial of work charge status to the Respondent-original writ petitioner shall certainly defeat the mandate of the judgement by resorting to pick and choose ignoring that the State Authorities have extended this benefit large number of similarly placed daily wagers throughout the State and therefore, the remaining or left over incumbents, alike the Respondent-original -writ petitioner (since deceased) is also entitled for same benefits, so as to give effect to intent and spirit of judgement dated 06.02.2025, case of Surajmani (supra), which stands reinforced on 26.05.2025 in the case of Janak Dev Sharma (supra). Further, denial of benefit to the Respondent- - 37 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) original writ petitioner shall certainly amount treating “equals as unequal” and shall defeat the parity. Denial of benefits to the Respondent-original 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 the corresponding category of employees from the date of completion of 8 years continuous daily waged w.e.f. 01.01.2005 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 the resultant benefit of higher pay for admissible higher retiral benefits and the resultant family pension to present respondents-substituted legal heirs also. Once these benefits give rise to a recurring and continuing cause every month till day, then, the impugned judgement, allowing the claim by invoking delay and laches is within the parameters of law, - 38 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) outlined by 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 higher pay fixation from due date and upon his demise, the resultant claim for family pension till day therefore, such an accrued right, in terms of judgement in rem, could not be sought to be negated by the Learned State Counsel and the is turned down. Accordingly, the impugned judgement passed by the Learned Single Judge does not suffers from any infirmity and the same upheld.

#12. Last contention of Learned State Counsel is that the directions contained in the impugned - 39 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) judgment granting work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of daily wage service with “restricted monetary benefits” for three years prior to the filing of petition from 2010 is contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surajmani (supra) whereby, only “notional benefits” were to be granted. 12(i). For appreciating the contention of Learned State 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 the case of 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 and to safeguard the interest of the State which otherwise would have burdened exchequer with extra benefits conferred 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 - 40 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) be entitled to the notional benefits of the order passed by the Tribunal and accordingly disposed of the said appeal.

#10. For the cumulative reasons afore stated 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 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 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 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].” 12(ii). While deciding a similar matter, the Hon’ble - 41 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) 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 therein, would apply mutatis mutandis in all the cases having same facts, in 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.” 12(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 - 42 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) 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 inconsonance with the declaration of law, in the case of Surajmani, (supra), binds the State Authorities in all respects. On second aspect, regarding the claim or direction 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, directions 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 the case of Surajmani (supra) which limits the relief to “notional benefits” only ; and secondly, the directions to limit the relief to “notional benefits” was based on findings recorded in Para 8 of the judgment in case of Surajmani (supra), mandating that the daily wagers who were regularly appointed or meaning thereby - 43 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) those daily wagers who were appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme should not be granted extra benefits, which will burden the State Exchequer this backdrop, the succor was given to the State, by modifying the orders passed by the 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 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, the grant of “all consequential benefits” or “restricted consequential benefits” shall amount to giving leverage or premium those daily wagers who were not regularly - 44 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) 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 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 the case of Surajmani (supra) also; and fifthly, mere filing of a petition(s) or its pendency before Learned State - 45 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) Administrative Tribunal 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 “all consequential benefits” or “restricted consequential benefits” as the case may be ; and lastly, foreseeing the eventuality that some daily wagers were granted work charge status with “all consequential benefits or restricted consequential benefits” by the State Authorities, despite the fact that such daily wagers were not regularly appointed or were appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme, therefore, in order to carve out a parity and to obviate the charge of discrimination inter-se such daily wagers, as a class, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has mandated in Para 11 of the judgment in case of Surajmani (supra) by reserving liberty for the State Authorities to recover excess benefits installments, those daily wagers who were not regularly appointed or were appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme, - 46 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) by entitling all such daily wagers for work charge status but by limiting the relief to “notional benefits, tune with law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Ashwani Kumar (supra), reinforced in Surajmani (supra) and recently reiterated in Janak Dev Sharma (supra).

#13. An identical Intra Court Appeal, LPA No. 541 of 2025, State of Himachal Pradesh versus Krishani Devi stands decided by this Court, wherein, the judgement passed by the Learned Single Judge entitling the Respondent-writ petitioner therein work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service was upheld; whereas, the directions regarding “restricted consequential benefits” for three years prior to the filing of the petition were set-aside by modifying the relief to “notional benefits”. B. CLAIM FOR REGULARISATION:

#14. Pertinently, the Respondent-original writ petitioner, namely Nar Dass was engaged as Road Roller Driver [Class-III] on daily wage muster-roll basis by Executive Engineer, PWD Divn Kumarsain, - 47 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) District Shimla, during the year 1996 and worked for 153 days in the said year. Thereafter he worked continuously with 240 days from the year 1997. He completed 8 years of continuous daily waged service as road roller Driver (Class-III) on 31.12.2004 and became eligible and entitled for regularization as such in terms of the regularization policy dated

18.06.2007 {taken on record} providing for regularizing the daily wagers who have completed 8 years of continuous daily waged service as on 31.03.2006 against vacant posts but his claim was denied by the State Authorities illegally, on the ground that existing R & P Rules of Class-IV Beldars of May 1995, (Annexure A-9) were amended by the State Authorities on 03.07.2013 (Annexure A-10) mandating that for appointment to a post, a person should be a citizen of India and due to this amendment daily wagers Class-IV of Nepali Origin were denied regularization. To meet this eventuality, though the State Authorities took a decision on 30.07.2013 and on 24.09.2016 implementable w.e.f 1.10.2016, {as in Annexure A-8 dated 1.12.2017} for regularizing - 48 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) Class-IV Daily Waged Beldars of Nepali origin, who were engaged during 1995 to 1997, whereas, no such decision was taken in case of Class-III Daily Wagers of Nepali origin alike the deceased respondent -original writ petitioner, who was engaged and had served as a Road Roller Driver Class-III with continuous service from 1.1.1997 till his death on

12.08.2018. 14(i). To assert the above stand in reply-affidavit Learned State Counsel has placed on record a communication dated 14.08.2025 {taken on record}, that the R & P rules for the post of Road Roller Driver, Class-III, were notified in May 1995 and since then, no amendment has been carried out in the said rules till day. Based on the above scenario, this Court is of the considered view that once the Respondent -original writ petitioner Nar Dass, since deceased) despite being a person of Nepali origin, had served as a Road Roller Driver Class-III with continuous service for about 21 years from 1.1.1997 till his death on 12.08.2018 then, the State Authorities - 49 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) could not deny the consideration and resultant regularization to the deceased employee-original writ petitioner in terms of the policy dated 18.06.2007 under which he was eligible and had rendered the requisite 8 years of continuous service as on

31.03.2006. The stand in the Reply Affidavit and contention of Learned State Counsel is misconceived for the reason that firstly, the non-consideration for regularization is dehors the policy dated 18.06.2007; and secondly, the right of consideration acquired in terms of policy aforesaid or such like policy could neither be negated nor denied arbitrarily; and thirdly, even a perusal of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Road Roller Driver (Class-III) issued in May 1995, which are still force and have not been amended as yet by carving out any ineligibility the persons of Nepali Origin were not eligible for appointment on a post, then, denial of consideration for regularization illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; and fourthly, a collective reading of Rule 10, 11 and especially Rule 14 (b) of - 50 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) the Rules of Road Roller Driver (Class-III) issued in May 1995 which holds the field and is still in force {as per Information dated 14.08.2025, conveyed to this Court, by way of Instructions, as referred to above} and these Rules makes a candidate, who is a candidate, who is subject of Nepal, as eligible for appointment to the post of Road Roller Driver (Class-III) under 70% appointment quota for daily wagers, after completion of requisite daily waged service, {which requirement as per the regularization policy in force in May 1995 was 10 years, which stands reduced to 08 years of daily waged service} then, the fundamental right of consideration for regularization as Road Roller Driver, (Class-III) acquired under the Rules of May 1995 which are still in force cannot be frustrated or kept in limbo indefinitely, as has been done in the instant case; and fifthly, the carving out ineligibility for appointment as per the Rules of Beldars (Class-IV) of May 1995, (Annexure A-9) for regularization on 03.07.2004, Annexure A-10 and in order to meet out the hardship in case of Beldars (Class-IV) of Nepali origin once State Authorities - 51 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) took a decision dated 30.07.2013 and 24.09.2016 granting relaxation for regularizing Class-IV Daily Waged Workers of Nepali Origin w.e.f 1.10.2016, {as in Annexure A-8 dated 1.12.2017} but no such eventuality existed in case of Respondent-original writ petitioner (since deceased Nar Dass), who was a Road Roller Driver (Class-III) then, the action of the State Authorities in denying consideration and the resultant regularization as Road Roller Driver, (Class-III) from the date of completion of 8 years of daily waged service is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, when, the State Authorities have extended the benefit of regularization as road roller Driver to non-Nepali daily wagers, which includes similarly placed and even junior incumbents from the date of completion of 8 years of daily waged service in terms of the policy dated 18.07.2007 or such like policy on completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service as on 31-03.2006 and the denial amounts to treating ‘equals as unequal”; and sixthly, denial of parity and similar treatment and even exclusion of Class-III incumbents has no rationale sought to be achieved; - 52 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) and seventhly, once the Respondent-original writ petitioner (since deceased) was made to work about 21 years on daily wages and it is not the case of the State Authorities that the vacant post of road roller driver was not available, when, similarly placed and even juniors were regularized therefore, then, the denial of benefit of regularization to the deceased Respondent-writ petitioner by carving out discrimination on the basis of birth-mark is ex-facie arbitrary and illegal and same cannot sustain; and lastly, once all the daily waged workers constitute one homogenous class therefore, grant of regularization from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service to other Class-III daily wagers, including road roller drivers in time scale of pay with higher pay benefits from such due date but from the date the said benefit(s) was extended to similarly placed and even immediate junior daily waged so as to avoid the charge of discrimination and to ensure equality in tune with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the denial of consideration and resultant regularization - 53 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) to Respondent-original writ petitioner (since deceased) as a Road Roller Driver (Class-III) from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service {w.e.f. 1.1.2005} or from the date said benefit of regularization as Road Roller Driver (Class-III) was granted to similarly placed and his immediate junior by the State Authorities {whichever is beneficial} with higher pay fixation benefits from such due date till death of the Respondent-Original writ petitioner, Nar Dass on 12.08.2018 ; and after his demise, the substituted respondents-legal heirs, are held entitled for family pension from date of death on 12.08.2018 notionally ; and admissible arrears thereafter accrue inaccordance with law. CONCLUSION:

#15. In the instant appeal, in so far as the claim for work charged status in Part-A of this Judgement (supra) is concerned, the same has merit, in view of the fact that the Respondent-original writ petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis in 1996 and rendered continuous service of 240 days from 1997 and thereafter. He completed 8 years of - 54 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) continuous daily waged service on 31.12.2004 and on completion of this service, he became eligible and entitled for work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2005. 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 has no hesitation to hold that once Respondent-writ petitioner was not regularly appointed on daily wages 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, benefit of work charge status to the Respondent-original writ petitioner from due date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service from 01.01.2005 with pay fixation benefits in applicable scale and thereafter in revised pay scales w.e.f 1.1.2006 and then in revised scales notified in January 2022 w.e.f 1.1.2016 till his death on 12.08.2018, notionally, in terms of the mandate of the Honble Supreme Court in cases of - 55 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) Ashwani Kumar, Surajmani and jank Dev Sharma (supra). As regards the claim for regularization, in Part B of this judgement, (supra), and based on the material on record, the claim is sustainable, and the State Authorities are mandated to consider and grant regularization from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service in terms of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for post of Road Roller Driver (Class-III) of May 1995, which still holds the field and inaccordance with applicable regularization policy dated 18.06.2007 or such like policy from due date {either from w.e.f. 1.1.2005 or such due date from which immediate junior daily incumbent was regularized as Road Roller Driver (Class-III) by the State Authorities, {whichever is beneficial}, with benefit of higher pay during service till his death on 12.08.2018 and after his demise substituted respondents-legal heirs herein, shall be granted family pension, from the date of death on

12.08.2018 notionally, but admissible arrears, thereafter if any, shall accrue from inaccordance with law. - 56 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) Based on above discussion, the Impugned Judgment dated 26.05.2023, entitling the deceased Respondent-writ petitioner(s) herein, for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service is upheld. However, upon conferment of work charge status, the resultant relief shall be limited to “notional benefits” instead of “restricted monetary benefits for 3 years prior to filing of petition in 2010”, so as to bring Impugned Judgment, it tune with the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar, which stands reinforced in Surajmani (supra) and recently reiterated in Janak Dev Sharma (supra) ; and the for benefit of regularization, shall be extended after due consideration from the date said benefit was given to similarly placed and even junior incumbents from due date on notional basis till death of the Respondent-original writ petitioner (Nar Dass, since deceased) as Road roller Driver (Class-III) on 12.08.2018 and after his demise, the substituted respondents- legal heirs, shall be granted family pension from date of death of deceased employee on 12.08.2018 notionally, - 57 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) and admissible arrears thereafter, if any, shall accrue thereafter inaccordance with law.

#16. No other point was pressed/argued. DIRECTIONS:

#17. In view of the above discussions and for reasons stated hereinabove, the instant appeal, is partly allowed, in following terms:- (i) Instant Appeal i.e. LPA No. 92 of 2025 is partly allowed; (ii) Impugned Judgment dated 26.05.2023 passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWPOA No. 4612 of 2020, Nar Dass (deceased) through LRs versus State of H.P. and others, entitling writ petitioner for work-charge status from date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service is upheld ; (iii) State Authorities-appellants are directed to grant work-charge status deceased writ petitioner [Nar Dass] w.e.f.

01.01.2005 or like due date {whichever is beneficial} in applicable pay scale as Road Roller Driver (Class-III) from the date of completion of eight years of continuous daily wage service countable w.e.f. 01.01.1997; (iv) Directions Impugned Judgment - 58 - ( 2025:HHC:28903 ) releasing “restricted consequential three years prior to filing petition” stand modified to “notional benefits” from due date, but without any past arrears; (v) Inaddition, State Authorities are mandated to consider and grant regularization to the Respondent-original writ petitioner (Nar Dass, since deceased) as Road Roller Driver (Class-III) from due date as in Para 14 (i) and para 15 of the judgement ; (vi) Consequent upon the directions in (i) to (v) above; the State Authorities shall give the family pension to the eligible legal heirs i.e. present respondents from due date inaccordance with law; (vii) State Authorities shall comply with the directions herein, within six weeks from receipt of certified/downloaded copy of this judgment; (viii) Parties to bear their respective costs.

#18. 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 August 27, 2025 (™) (Ranjan Sharma) Judge