SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 716

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA 
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, CJ., RANJAN SHARMA, J.
Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya Palampur, through its Registrar - Appellant 
Versus 
Balwant Singh – Respondent
LPA No. 84 of 2025 
Decided On : 11-03-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Arun Rana, Advocate.

The court affirmed that employees similarly situated must receive equal benefits, emphasizing non-discrimination in service matters under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law - Work Charged Status - The court upheld the decision of the Single Judge directing the University to confer work charged status to the Respondent-Employee, citing the precedent set in Surajmani and Sarwan Kumar cases. The denial of similar treatment was deemed arbitrary and discriminatory. (Paras 4, 10, 11)

(B) Equal Treatment - The court emphasized that once benefits are conferred to some employees, similar benefits must be extended to all similarly situated employees to avoid discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (Paras 7, 10)

(C) Notional Benefits - The court clarified that while work charged status is granted, it will be limited to notional benefits, restricting arrears to three years preceding the filing of the petition. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The Respondent-Employee claimed work charged status after eight years of service, similar to other employees. The University had previously conferred this status to others but denied it to the Respondent, leading to claims of discrimination.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Respondent-Employee was entitled to work charged status from the date of completion of eight years of service, affirming the Single Judge's decision.

Issues: The main issues included whether the Respondent was entitled to work charged status and whether the University’s denial constituted discrimination.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the University must grant work charged status to the Respondent-Employee, as similar benefits were extended to others, and that the denial was discriminatory.

Result: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Single Judge was upheld.

JUDGMENT :

(Ranjan Sharma, J.)

Appellant-University has come up before this Court, assailing the judgement, In Re; Balwant Singh versus Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Palampur, i.e. in CWPOA No. 7038 of 2019, dated 07.05.2024 [Annexure A-1], {referred to as the Impugned Judgement} whereby, the Learned Single Judge had directed Appellant-University to confer work charged status to Respondent-Employee herein, on analogy on which, it has been conferred upon another employee(s), Sarwan Kumar [petitioner in CWP No. 1396 of 2019 decided on 12.01.2023 at Sr. No. 89 in bunch of connected cases alongwith LPA No. 165 of 2021, In Re: State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Surajmani and another].

FACTUAL MATRIX BEFORE WRIT COURT:

2. Respondent-Employee herein had filed an Original Application No. 1119 of 2016 [which upon abolition of State Administrative Tribunal was converted as CWPOA No. 7038 of 2019] with the assertion that he was engaged as a daily paid labourer in Appellant-University w.e.f. 16.08.1993 and was regularized in service after 14 years continuous service in terms of the applicable/adopted policy on 15.06.2007 [Annexure A-1]. Notwithstanding the regularization after 14 years, the petitioner claimed benefit of regularization after completion of eight years of continuous service as has been extended to other similar persons as mentioned in [Annexure A-2]. During the pendency of proceedings before the Writ Court, the Respondent-Employee herein, filed an application [CMP(T) No. 226 of 2024], with the assertion that the case of Respondent-Employee is squarely covered for conferment of work charged status from the date of completion of eight years continuous service in terms of the judgement in CWP No. 1396 of 2019 titled as CSKHPKV versus Sarwan Kumar decided on 12.01.2023. In the aforesaid application, it was also mentioned that the judgement in the case of Sarwan Kumar [supra] has been implemented by passing an office order on 16.09.2023 [in case of Sarwan Kumar] and another order dated 11.03.2024 in case of eight other similar employees [Annexure A-1], by granting work charge status from the date of completion of eight years continuous service as daily waged worker.

2(i). It was asserted by Respondent-Employee that once work charge status has been conferred on Sarwan Kumar and others eight incumbents in terms of orders dated 16.09.2023 and 11.03.2024 then, similar treatment may be extended to him by conferring work charge status from the date of completion of eight years continuous service whereas the denial of consideration and resultant work charged status to the respondent-employee on the analogy on which it was given to other similar incumbents was arbitrary, discriminatory, resulting in hostile discrimination and by adopting a pick and choose method has visited the Respondent- Employee of civil consequences, resulting in denial of higher status and pay fixation during service an admissible eligible consequential benefits, if any, on 30.04.2016 is recurring loss till day.

STAND OF APPELLANT-UNIVERSITY IN WRIT PROCEEDINGS:

3. Appellant-University filed a reply with the averments that the University adopted the State Government policy dated 09.06.2006 [Annexure R-I], which was adopted by the University on 14.06.2007 [Annexure R-II] providing for considering the cases of daily waged/contingent paid worker who had completed eight years continuous service as on 31.03.2004 for regularization against available vacancy and with the averments that regularization shall have prospective effect.

3(i). Even in Para 2 and Para 6 (vii) of the Reply-Affidavit, the Appellant-University admitted that the Respondent-Employee had completed eight years of continuous service of 240 days in each calendar year as on 01.01.2002.

3(ii). Respondent employee herein, filed an application [CMP-T No 226 of 2024], containing averments that once the University has granted work charged status from the date of completion of 8

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top