The State of Himachal Pradesh and others v. Hamila Devi

dated 11.01.2024, on the grounds, firstly, that the Learned Single Judge had ignored the pleadings and the Respondent writ petitioner had accepted her regularization without any protest on 08.03.2017, therefore, the Respondent had no right to claim work charged status and therefore, the impugned judgment being perverse was liable to be set-aside; and secondly, 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 Authorities abolished the work charged cadre for Class-IV category on 19.08.2005 therefore, work charge status was not admissible; and lastly, the Impugned Judgment giving the restricted monetary benefits for 3 years prior to filing of the writ petition - 6 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 ) 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, Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for the Appellants-State and have perused the record . MATTER IN ISSUE COVERED BY JUDGMENT IN SURAJMANI [CIVIL APPEAL No.1595 OF 2025] DECIDED ON 06.02.2025:

#6. The matter in issue 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, in view of the vehement insistence of the Learned State Counsel, this Court proceeds to examine the matter. ANALYSIS OF CONTENTIONS RAISED & GROUNDS IN INSTANT LPA:

#7. First contention of Learned State Counsel is that the Impugned Judgment dated 11.01.2024, passed by the Learned Single Judge, by ignoring the pleadings is liable to be set- aside. - 7 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 ) The above contention is misconceived, for the reason, that the Impugned Judgment takes into account the pleadings, revealing the factual matrix that though the Respondent-writ petitioner, a person of Nepali origin was engaged as daily waged Beldar in the year 2000 and had completed 240 days in said year and though her services were regularized on 08.03.2017, Annexure R-2, yet, she was denied work charged status when, the Honble Supreme Court, in the context of the daily wagers in the State of Himachal Pradesh, has held in principle, in State of Himachal Pradesh vs Gehar Singh (2007) 12 SCC 43, that grant of regularization shall not divest an employee of the right for work charge status from an earlier date. Moreover, right of the daily wagers for work charged status stands settled by the judgment in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others along with connected matters; against which SLP was dismissed by Three Judges Bench of the Honble Supreme Court; and this right was reiterated in case of CWP No. 3111 of 2016, State - 8 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 ) of Himachal Pradesh versus Ashwani Kumar, mandating to grant work charge status, irrespective of the fact as to whether work charge establishment existed and conversion of work charged establishment would not make such right non-existent. Even 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, which stands affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court in case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Others versus Surajmani and Another [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025 and other connected matters, decided on 06.02.2025]. Based on this, the Learned Single Judge directed the State Authorities to grant the work-charged status to the Respondent-writ petitioner from date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily-wage service after taking into account 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 - 9 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 ) 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, 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 04.09.2024, and matter listed on 09.12.2024, when, the notice was issued to the non-applicant/respondent-writ petitioner but since she chose not to appear, despite having been served therefore, she was proceeded ex-parte

22.04.2025 when, after condoning the delay, the LPA was finally taken up for adjudication at this 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: - 10 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 ) State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr vs Surajmani and other connected cases, stands decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 06.02.2025, entitling daily wagers for work charged status date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service. Since, SLP in the case of Surajmani [supra] stands decided, therefore, Impugned Judgment dated 11.01.2024, 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. 01.01.2008], does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.

#10. Third contention of Learned State Counsel is that work charge status cannot be granted after abolition of work charged status on 19.08.2005 in case of Class-IV daily wagers, including category of Beldar. 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 - 11 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 ) 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-writ petitioner of the benefits accruing in terms of the mandate of the judgement the case of Surajmani, which a judgement in rem and is binding on the State Authorities and Court(s) and thirdly, as per the mandate of law in case of Ashwani Kumar (supra) for conferment of work charge status there was neither the need for work charge establishment nor 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 to daily wagers in the State and lastly, once the neither State Authorities in the appellant-department has granted work charge status to other Class-IV daily wagers Beldars, from the date of completion of 8 years of daily waged service with higher pay benefits therefore, the denial of similar work charged status with higher pay fixation to the respondent-writ petitioner herein is patently - 12 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 ) 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 and the same was also approved by the Honble Apex Court as detailed hereinbelow, and therefore, the 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 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 - 13 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 ) Supreme Court in 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, 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 and this policy remained in vogue till the issuance of another policy on 09.06.2004 meaning thereby, that daily wagers engaged between period would be granted the work charged status. 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 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 - 14 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 ) 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 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 - 15 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 ) 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 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 - 16 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 ) 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 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, - 17 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 ) 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 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 - 18 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 ) 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 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 - 19 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 ) 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.2735 of 2010, against which SLP (C) No. 8830-8869 of 2011 on 15.01.2015] was also dismissed. The 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 - 20 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 ) 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 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 - 21 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 ) 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 Mool Raj Upadhyaya, Gehar Singh, Ashwani Kumar and Surajmani [supra] and the judgments of this Court in cases of Gauri Dutt, Rakesh Kumar and Pritam Singh {CWPOA No 7497 of 2020, decided on

29.7.2024}; the right and entitlement of the Respondent -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 State Authorities. Contention of Learned State Counsel and the action of State Authorities in raking up the plea that since work charge establishment stood abolished therefore, the work charge status cannot be granted cannot be permitted when, this plea stands negated by this Court in case of judgement passed - 22 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 ) by the Division Bench of this Court Ashwani Kumar, (supra), which stands upheld by the Honble Supreme Court and moreover, when, concept of work charge status in the State of Himachal Pradesh was just conferment of a better status by giving pay in the time scale-pay scale as was admissible to persons holding corresponding posts, in terms of the Scheme of Betterment framed by the State Authorities, which was approved by the Honble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra) and judgements subsequent thereto, as referred to above. In these circumstances, this Court reiterates that for purposes of conferment of work charge status to all the daily wagers in Himachal Pradesh, there was neither any need for work charge establishment nor its cessation or its abolition or conversion would make any difference and even there was no requirement for creation of post and even availability or non-availability of post would have any impact for conferring such status. Recently, the Honble Supreme Court has mandated in Surajmani [supra], by declaring the law, by way of judgment in rem, entitling daily wagers for work - 23 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 ) charged status from date of completion of 8 years of continuous service then, the rights and benefits accruing from the declaration of law can neither be restricted nor curtailed or denied to daily wagers like respondent-writ petitioner. Denial of work charge status to the respondent-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 many similar incumbents, and therefore, remaining or left over incumbents, alike respondent-writ petitioner is entitled for same benefits, so as to give effect to intent and spirit of judgement dated

06.02.2025, in the case of Surajmani (supra), which stands reinforced on 26.05.2025 in case of Janak Dev Sharma (infra). Further, the denial of benefit shall certainly amount to treating “equals as unequal” and shall defeat the parity. Denial of benefits to the Respondent-writ petitioner shall perpetuate hostile discrimination within one homogenous class of daily wagers, who are entitled for work charged status - 24 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 ) 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 the time scale of pay as admissible to corresponding category of employees from the date of completion of 8 years continuous daily waged w.e.f. 01.01.2008 and revised scale notified in January 2022 w.e.f. 1.1.2016 and thereafter. Right of an in-service employee and for pay fixation and resultant right for higher retiral benefits, including higher pension upon superannuation gives rise to a recurring and continuing cause every month till day. In these circumstances, the impugned judgement, so far as it entitles the Respondent-writ petitioner for work charge status does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and the same is upheld.

#11. Fourth contention of Learned State Counsel is that the State Authorities are aggrieved against operative part of directions contained in Para-7 of the Impugned Judgment dated 11.01.2024, entitling the Respondent-writ petitioner entitled for “restricted consequential benefits for three years prior to the - 25 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 ) filing of the writ petition [filed on 18.07.2022], by contending that these directions are contrary to the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Himachal Pradesh versus Ashwani Kumar [Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019, decided on 22.07.2019] and the judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh versus Surajmani and other connected cases [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, decided on 06.02.2025]. 11(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 Surajmani (supra), which reads as under: “8. However, apprehension of the State as expressed thereunder and to safeguard the interest of the State which otherwise would have burdened the exchequer with extra benefits being conferred on 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 that the petitioners/ appellants therein would be entitled to the notional benefits of the order passed - 26 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 ) by the Tribunal and accordingly disposed of the said appeal.

#10. For the cumulative reasons aforestated we are of the considered view that the dicta laid down by this Court vide order dated 22.07.2019 in Ashwani Kumar’s (Supra) case which is based on the judgment of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (Supra) holds the field and would also be applicable to the Respondents herein who had approached Tribunal or the High Court seeking similar relief. As such, the Respondents shall be entitled for grant of ‘work- charged’ status the date of completion of 8 years of service. However, we hold that the relief in the present appeals will be limited to notional benefits as explained in paragraph 3 and 4 of Ashwani Kumar’s (Supra) case in Civil Appeal No(s).5753 of 2019 and the present appeals stand disposed of accordingly…

#12. It further underscored that this judgment would necessarily be a judgment in rem and the State shall hence forth not take recourse to employing personnel as daily wagers but shall make appointments only in accordance with law, as enumerated in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1].” 11(ii). Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has - 27 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 ) 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, mandating that the judgment in case of Surajmani (supra) judgment in rem with the 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 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 leave petitions is in futility. The State may take note of this fact and do the needful.” 11(iii). In the above backdrop, this Court of the considered view, that the judgment in the case of Surajmani (supra) was “judgment in rem” declaring law, covering twin aspects, firstly, - 28 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 ) 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 is, actual or notional, upon grant of work charge status. The directions contained in the Impugned Judgment, on the first aspect, regarding entitlement of daily wagers for grant of work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service, being inconsonance with declaration of law in the case of Surajmani, (supra), needs no interference in these proceedings. On the second aspect, regarding directions for granting “all consequential benefits” or “restricted consequential benefits for three years” is liable to be interfered with. Firstly, the directions to grant all consequential benefits is contrary to the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra) which limits the relief to “notional benefits”; and secondly, the directions to limit relief to “notional benefits” was based on findings recorded in Para 8 of the judgment - 29 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 ) the case of Surajmani (supra), mandating that the daily wagers who were not regularly appointed or were appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme should not be granted extra benefits, which will burden the State Exchequer and is primarily this backdrop, that succor was given to the State, by modifying the orders giving “all consequential benefits”, passed by the Learned State Administrative Tribunal, upheld by the Division Bench of this Court, were modified 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] and more-so, this principle stands reinforced the 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), mandating to limit the relief to “notional benefits” cannot be permitted to be tinkered with in any eventuality; and fourthly, grant of “all consequential benefits” or “restricted benefits” shall amount to giving leverage or premium - 30 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 ) those daily wagers who were not regularly appointed or were appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India i.e. without there being a sanctioned post, without advertising post, without inviting applications from the eligible candidates and without determining comparative merit of all the eligible candidates in- accordance with the Constitutional Scheme. Financial incentives i.e. “all consequential benefits” or “restricted benefits” cannot be extended to those daily wagers who were regularly appointed and not daily wagers who were appointed dehors established ethos of public employment, by back door method. Right to “all consequential benefits or restricted benefits” can only accrue to a daily wager who was initially appointed as per Constitutional Scheme, which stands approved the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 01} and reaffirmed in the case of Surajmani (supra) also; and fifthly, mere filing of a petition(s) or pendency of petition, before State Administrative Tribunal or this Court - 31 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 ) for work charge status by daily wager, who was regularly appointed as per the established ethos of public appointment or was appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme will not have any legally enforceable right for “all consequential benefits” or “restricted benefits” as the case may be ; and lastly, since some daily wagers were extended the benefits of work charge status with “all consequential benefits or restricted benefits”, by the State Authorities, despite the fact that such daily wagers were not regularly appointed or were appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme and in order to carve out parity and to obviate the charge of discrimination inter-se the daily wagers, seeking work charge status, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has mandated in Para 11 of the judgment in Surajmani (supra) reserving liberty to the State Authorities to recover excess benefits installments, those daily wagers who were not regularly appointed or were appointed dehors the Constitutional Scheme, by entitling all such daily wagers for work charged status, with “notional benefits, which shall be in - 32 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 ) inconsonance with the mandate of Law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Ashwani Kumar (supra), which stands reinforced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surajmani (supra) and reiterated in the case of Janak Dev Sharma (supra). 11(iv). In instant appeal, the Respondent-Employee has not placed any material on record to establish that she was regularly appointed or was appointed on daily wages inconsonance with the Constitutional Scheme as discussed above. In the absence of any material on record, to establish “that the appointment of the Respondent-writ petitioner was as per the Constitutional Scheme; therefore, this Court, has no hesitation to hold the Respondent-employee shall be entitled for work charge status from date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service and upon grant of work charge status, the relief shall be limited “to notional benefits”, in the light of the mandate of Law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ashwani Kumar (supra), which has been reinforced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra). - 33 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 ) IDENTICAL ISSUE DECIDED:

#12. In an identical Intra Court Appeal, LPA No. 541 of 2025, State of Himachal Pradesh vs Krishani Devi, this Court held the Respondent -employee entitled for work charged status date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service; whereas, directions regarding “restricted consequential benefits” for three years prior to filing of writ petition are set-aside by modifying the relief to “notional benefits”. CONCLUSION:

#13. In view of above discussion, the directions contained in the Impugned Judgment, regarding the entitlement and grant of work charge status the Respondent-writ petitioner [Hamila Devi] the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service is upheld. However, upon grant of work charge status, the resultant relief shall be limited only to “notional benefits” instead of the direction in operative part of impugned judgement for giving “restricted consequential benefits for three years prior to filing of the writ petition” {filed on - 34 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 )

18.07.2022}, so as to bring the impugned judgement in tune with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases Ashwani Kumar (supra), which stands reinforced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surajmani (supra), and recently reiterated in Janak Dev Sharma (supra).

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

#15. In view of the above discussions and for reasons stated hereinabove, the instant appeal, is partly allowed, in following terms:- (i) Instant Appeal LPA No. 186 of 2025, is partly allowed; (ii) Impugned Judgment dated 11.01.2024 passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP No.4868 of 2022, Hamila Devi vs State of H.P. & others; entitling the Respondent-Writ Petitioner [Hamila Devi] 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 confer work-charged status as a Beldar [Class-IV] w.e.f. 01.01.2008 or like due date from date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged - 35 - ( 2025:HHC:29206 ) service in applicable time-pay scale, with pay fixation benefits from due date, by counting daily wage service w.e.f.

01.01.2000 ; (iv) Directions in the Impugned Judgment for releasing “consequential benefits for three years prior to the filing of writ petition” shall stand modified to “notional benefits” from due date, but without any past arrears; (v) State Authorities shall comply with the directions contained herein, 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 29, 2025 [tm/Bhardwaj]