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) 1674

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Ranjan Sharma, J.
Ranjeet Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh & Others - Respondent
CWPOA No.3330 of 2020
Decided On : 02-12-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General

Daily wagers entitled to work-charged status after 8 years continuous service from due date with notional pay fixation benefits only, no past arrears, despite subsequent regularization or establishment abolition.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Daily waged Class-III employees - Entitlement to work-charged status on completion of 8 years continuous service (180 days/year in tribal areas) - Eligible w.e.f. 01.01.2003 despite work-charged establishment abolition w.e.f. 01.04.2001 and subsequent regularization in 2006 - Limited to notional benefits comprising pay fixation in scale from due date with annual increments till regularization and higher fixation till retirement, without past arrears or consequential benefits - Excess arrears paid to others for implementing tribunal/court orders recoverable - Later regularization no bar to antecedent work-charged status. (Paras 6(i)-6(viii), 8)

(B) Notional benefits exclusive - Claim for full arrears or 3 years preceding petition untenable - Parity denied as Supreme Court judgments in rem restrict irregularly appointed daily wagers to notional relief protecting exchequer - State at liberty to recover excess payments without one-time settlement insistence. (Paras 6(iv)-6(vi))

Facts of the case:
Petitioner engaged as daily waged Class-III operator w.e.f. 15.05.1995, completed 8 years continuous service by 31.12.2002 per mandays chart, regularized w.e.f. 13.12.2006 joining 14.12.2006, retired 30.04.2016. Seeks work-charged status from 01.01.2003, arrears with interest, seniority, consequential benefits. State resists citing abolition of work-charged for Class-III w.e.f. 01.04.2001, regularization without protest.

Findings of Court:
Work-charged status granted w.e.f. 01.01.2003 with notional benefits only; arrears claim declined; parties bear costs.

Issues: Entitlement to antecedent work-charged status despite abolition and regularization; quantum of relief (notional vs. arrears/consequential); parity with others granted arrears; effect of Supreme Court precedents limiting relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Daily wagers entitled to work-charged status from 8 years completion per binding Supreme Court precedents; regularization no bar; relief confined to notional pay benefits excluding arrears for irregularly appointed, with excess recoverable ensuring uniformity.

Result: Petition allowed in specified terms.

Table of Content
1. daily wager claims work charge post 8 years. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. state denies due to abolition, regularization. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. eligible for work charge status from 01.01.2003. (Para 8)

JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, Judge

Petitioner, Ranjeet Singh had initially filed an Original Application i.e. OA No 6670 of 2017 before Learned Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal and upon abolition of the Tribunal, the same was transferred to this Court as CWPOA No. 3330 of 2020, seeking the following relief(s):

“(i). That the applicant is entitled for regularization in terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. in CWP 2735/2010 decided on 28.07.2010 and followed by this Hon’ble Tribunal.

(ii). That the arrears w.e.f. completion of 8 years with interest may also be granted in favour of the applicant.

(iii). That the applicant be considered for regularization in term of Rakesh Kumar CWP 2735/2020 in completion of 8 years.

(iv). That the seniority and consequential benefits may also be granted in favour of the applicant w.e.f. after completion of 8 ears with 240 days in one calendar year.”

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. Grievance is that the petitioner was engaged as an Air Compressor Operator [Class-III] w.e.f. 15.05.1995 under HPPWD, Division Kalpa in District Kinnaur, which is a tribal area on 15.05.1995 and he was regularized as Air Compressor Operator w.e.f. 13.12.2006 [Annexure A-1] and he retired from service on 30.04.2016 [Annexure A-3].

2(i). In this backdrop, the petitioner has filed the instant petition that the State Authorities have granted regularization/work charge status to daily waged incumbents from the date they completed 08 years of continuous service whereas the respondents have granted regularization to the petitioner after about 11 years on 13.12.2006 [Annexure A-2] and he joined on 14.12.2006 [Annexure A-3] but the Respondents have denied work charge status from the date he completed requisite 08 years continuous service [i.e. 180 days for tribal areas] from the due date.

In instant petition, a prayer is made for seeking the benefit of regularization/work charge status to the petitioner from due date of completion of 08 years of continuous daily waged service from 01.01.2003 with all consequential benefits.

STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT:

3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 08.01.2018, the State Authorities have filed Reply- Affidavit dated 27.02.2018 of Superintending Engineer 11th Circle, Rampur.

3(i). Perusal of the Reply-Affidavit admits the incumbency that the petitioner was engaged as daily waged Air Compressor Operator w.e.f. 15.05.1995 and was regularized on 13.12.2006 on the same post. It is averred that petitioner joined the regularization without protest. Reply-Affidavit indicates that the work charge status from the date of completion of 08 years of continuous service i.e. w.e.f. 01.01.2003 cannot be granted to the petitioner as work charge establishment in case of Class-III employees, stood abolished by the State Government w.e.f. 01.04.2001. The Mandays Chart was enclosed with the reply as Annexure R-1. Reply-Affidavit further indicates that once the petitioner stands regularized on 14.12.2006 [Annexure A-2] therefore, the claim for work charge status from an anterior date was not tenable. It is in this background that the respondents have opposed the claim of the petitioner.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner on Instructions states that he does not intend to file rejoinder [Statement Taken on Record].

5. Heard, Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Learned State Counsel and have gone through the material available on record.

ANALYSIS:

6. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that though the claim of the petitioner in the instant petition is for regularization from the date of completion of 08 years of continuous service but the c

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