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) 1848

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RANJAN SHARMA, J.
Suresh Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh & Others – Respondents
CWPOA No.2059 of 2020
Decided On : 30-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Anil Kumar God, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General.

Daily wagers gain work charge status after 8 years continuous service (240 days/year), limited to notional benefits without arrears, even post-regularization or sans work charge setup.

Headnote:(A) Service jurisprudence - Daily waged workers - Entitlement to work charge status upon completion of 8 years continuous service with 240 days each calendar year - Status accorded irrespective of subsequent regularization or absence of work charge establishment in department - Benefits restricted to notional pay fixation with annual increments from due date till regularization and notionally thereafter till retirement, without past arrears - Excess payments made to others recoverable to ensure parity. (Paras 6(i), 6(ii), 6(vi), 6(vii), 6(ix))

(B) Notional benefits - Scope - Pay scale fixation from entitlement date without monetary arrears - Claim for arrears impermissible even if granted to similarly situated due to prior court orders, as superseded by binding precedent limiting relief to notional. (Paras 6(iv), 6(vi))

Facts of the case:
Petitioner engaged as daily waged beldar from 1994, completed 8 years continuous service by 01.01.2003, regularized on 18.02.2009 after 15 years. Sought work charge status from 2003 with consequential benefits including arrears, interest, seniority; state resisted claiming no work charge establishment.

Findings of Court:
Work charge status granted w.e.f. 01.01.2003 with notional benefits only; no past arrears or consequential monetary relief.

Issues: Eligibility for work charge status after 8 years despite later regularization and departmental structure; extent of benefits - notional versus arrears; parity with others who received arrears.

Ratio Decidendi: Daily wagers entitled to work charge status per binding precedents post 8 years service; relief moulded to notional benefits to protect exchequer as appointments backdoor; regularization no bar to prior status; excess arrears to others recoverable.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. state admits service, denies work charge eligibility pre-2009. (Para 4)
2. petition allowed: work charge from 2003, notional benefits. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Petitioner, Suresh Sharma had initially filed an Original Application i.e. OA No 2223 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. 2059 of 2020, seeking the following relief(s):

“(a). That the present OA may kindly be allowed and directing the respondents to give regularization to the applicant with all consequential benefits as per ratio laid down in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. & Ors, along with connected matters, which was decided on 28.07.2010 by Hon’ble High Court of H.P and decision rendered by the Apex Court in Special leave to Appeal (Civil) No.(s) 21939-22009/2011, titled as State of H.P & Others versus Som Nath & Others, which was decided on 07.05.2013 as per the 8 years’ policy, as and when applicant has completed 8 years of service with 240 days since the applicant was engaged, with all consequential benefits with up to date interest, seniority, arrears of pay, pension, promotion etc;
(b). That the direction be given to respondents to give regularization to the applicants, when he has completed 8 years of service, as has been done by the respondent department in the case of similarly situated persons.”

FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Grievance is that the petitioner was engaged as Beldar on 26.10.1994 under Horticulture Department and he was regularized as Beldar w.e.f. 18.02.2009 [Annexure A-1] after completion of 15 years of service with 240 days in each calendar year. It is averred that the State Authorities have issued a policy for granting regularization/work charge status to daily waged incumbents from the date they completed 08 years of continuous service and this policy came up for consideration before this Court in CWP No.2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar Versus State of H.P. & Ors., alongwith connected matters, which was decided on 28.07.2010 whereby the State Authorities were directed to grant regularization/work charge status from the date he completed requisite 08 years continuous service. It is averred that benefits of regularization/work charge status have been granted to other similarly situated persons.
It is averred that due to non-grant of regularization/work charge status from the due date of completion of eight years of continuous daily-waged service, the petitioner was deprived of the benefit of higher status and pay fixation with all consequential benefits. It is in this backdrop that the instant petition was filed.

STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT:
3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 13.05.2017, the State authorities have filed the Reply-Affidavit dated 05.07.2017, of Director of Horticulture, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.
3(i). Perusal of the Reply-Affidavit admits that the petitioner was engaged as a daily-waged labourer w.e.f. 26.10.1994 and had completed 240 days in each calendar year w.e.f. 1995 onwards. It is further admitted that the petitioner was regularized on 17.02.2009 as Beldar by the State authorities on availability of a vacancy on the basis of seniority. The Reply-Affidavit indicates that the petitioner is not eligible for regularization w.e.f. 31.12.2002, as claimed in the writ petition. The Reply-Affidavit further indicates that, so far as work charge status is concerned, the same cannot be granted to the petitioner, for the reason, that the respondent/Horticulture Department does not have a work charge establishment and therefore, the claimed benefit was repelled by the State Authorities, with a prayer for dismissal of the writ petition.

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

5. Heard, Mr. Anil Kumar God, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Hemant








































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