Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1728

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RANJAN SHARMA, J.
Sunita Kumari & Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others – Respondents
CWPOA No.7896 of 2019
Decided On : 28-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Naresh Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional Advocate General.

Daily wagers entitled to work-charge status after eight years continuous service (240 days/year) with notional benefits only from due date; departmental lack of establishment immaterial; discriminatory denial unconstitutional.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Daily wagers - Entitlement to work-charge status upon completion of eight years continuous daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year - Supreme Court judgment in rem mandates conferment from due date despite subsequent regularization - Notional benefits limited to pay fixation, annual increments till regularization date and revised retiral benefits - Absence of work-charge establishment immaterial as rights accrue prospectively from policy and retrospectively enforceable - Discriminatory denial to petitioners while granting to similarly placed employees violates Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. (Paras 6(i), 6(ii), 6(iii), 6(iv), 6(v))

(B) Administrative Law - Rejection orders denying claims dehors binding judicial precedents quashed - Declarations of law have retrospective effect safeguarding accrued rights. (Para 6(vi))

Facts of the case:
Petitioners engaged as daily wagers in 1994 and 1996 rendered continuous service with 240 days each year from 1995/1996 till 2002/2003, regularized on 08.09.2007. Sought work-charge status from completion of eight years per policy; state denied citing no work-charge establishment per 24.09.2015 communication and prior regularization, despite granting to 78 others.

Findings of Court:
Work-charge status granted w.e.f. 01.01.2003 to two petitioners and 01.01.2004 to third; notional benefits from due dates without past arrears; entire exercise within six weeks.

Issues: Entitlement to work-charge status post eight years despite no departmental establishment; impact of regularization and policy change; validity of discriminatory treatment.

Ratio Decidendi: Supreme Court precedents bind conferment of work-charge status after eight years continuous service with notional benefits only; departmental abolition of establishment prospective and ineffective against vested rights; equals must be treated alike precluding pick-and-choose policy.

Result: Petition allowed; rejection orders quashed and set aside; directions issued for work-charge status and notional benefits.

Table of Content
1. state denies status absent work-charge establishment post-regularization. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Petitioner, Sunita Kumari and two others initially filed O.A. No.3333 of 2016, before Learned State Administrative Tribunal; and upon of the Tribunal, the matter has been transferred to CWPOA No.7896 of 2019 seeking the following relief(s):

“(i). That the orders dated 23.11.2015 Annexure A-2, A-2, A-2b may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the applicants and give them work-charge status after 8 years of daily waged services as per the judgment delivered in CWP No.2735 of 2010 titled as Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P.”

FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners were engaged as daily wagers in the Forest Department in 1994 and their services were regularized on 08.09.2007 on completion of 08 years of daily wage services as per the policy.
2(i). It is averred that Petitioner No.1, Sunita Kumari and Petitioner No.2-Vinod Kumar have rendered continuous service with 240 days from 1995 till 2006 as per Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-2a. Likewise, the Petitioner No.2-Vinod Kumar, had rendered continuous service with 240 days from 1995 till 2006 as per Annexure A-2a. Petitioner No.3-Thanapati, had rendered continuous service with 240 days from 1996 till 2006 as per Annexure A-2b.
In this background, the petitioners have claimed work charge status from the date they complete 08 years of continuous daily wage service in the Respondent-Department.

STAND OF STATE AUTHORTIES IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT:
3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 01.09.2016, the Respondents have filed the Reply-Affidavit dated 03.12.2016 of Executive Engineer [Forest], in office of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Shimla. 3(i). Perusal of the Reply-Affidavit indicates that Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2 were engaged in 1994 and they completed 240 days of continuous service from 1995 till 2006 as per mandays Annexure R-I and Annexure R-II. Likewise, though the petitioner No.3 was engaged during 1996 but she had completed 240 days of continuous daily wage service from 1995 to 2006 as per Annexure R-IV. Reply-Affidavit states that the petitioners stand regularized as Peon on 07.09.2007, as per the regularization policy. In Para 4(iii) of Reply-Affidavit, the State Authorities have taken a stand that the Forest Department does not have a work charge establishment as per the communication dated 24.09.2015 and therefore, the benefit of work charge status cannot granted to the petitioners in in the instant case coupled with the fact that once the petitioners stand regularized, therefore, the claim for work charge status from an earlier date is not tenable. In this backdrop, prayer was made for dismissing the writ petition.

REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER:
4. Petitioners have filed a rejoinder stating that non-grant of work charge status to the petitioners is discriminatory, when, as per the information in Annexure A-3 [sic. Annexure A-4] work charge status has been given to about 78 daily wagers in the Forest Department as per the List. In this backdrop, the plea of discriminatory treatment and adoption of different yardstick by the State Authorities has been asserted by the petitioners.

5. Heard, Mr. Naresh Verma, Learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Navlesh Verma, Learned Additional Advocate General, for the Respondents-State and have also gone through the material available on record.

ANALYSIS:
6. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioners for conferment of work charge status from the date they completed 08 years of daily wage service with notional benefits has force and the same is accepted for the following reasons:
6(i). Perusal of the Mandays Chart [Annexures R-I and R-II] appended with the Reply-Affidavit goes on to establish that