IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.183 of 2024 Reserved on: 14.08.2025 Announced on: 27.08.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Jai Ram ...Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

1Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the appellant: r Mr. A.K. Gupta and Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocates.

For the respondents: Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional o Advocate General.

Ranjan Sharma, Judge Appellant-writ petitioner has come up before hthis Court, assailing the Judgment dated 10.06.2024 [referred to as Impugned Judgment] passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP No. 5119 of 2024, In re: Jai Ram versus State of H.P. and others; dismissing the writ petition filed by the Respondent-Employee [Jai Ram], for claiming work charged status, on the ground of delay and laches.

FACTUAL MATRIX BEFORE WRIT COURT:

2. Jai Ram, writ petitioner, (now appellant), a

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Mason [Class-III], had filed a CWP No.5119 of 2024, seeking the following relief:-

“(i). That Annexure P-1 may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be ordered to grant work charge status to the petitioner from the date he completed 8 years service, with all benefits incidental thereof.”

2(i). In CWP No. 5119 of 2024, the appellant- writ petitioner herein, had set up a case that he was engaged as a Mason [Class-III] in Public Works Department under Executive Engineer, Mandi Division No.2, Mandi in the year 1995 and he completed 8 years on daily wage service and became eligible for grant of work charge status from 01.01.2003. H owever, the appellant-writ petitioner was regularized by the State Authorities on 04.04.2007 and he joined on 05.04.2007 as a Mason [Class-III] {as in rejection H orders, P-1} yet he was denied work charge status.

Against this denial, he filed OA No. 836 of 2018, before the Learned State Administrative Tribunal, which was disposed of on 28.10.2018, with directions to consider the case of the Appellant-writ petitioner in the light of the judgment in CWP No 3111 of 2016, In re; State of HP and Ors. versus Ashwani Kumar and to extend similar benefits, incase upon verification, the Appellant-Writ petitioner was found to be similarly placed. Based on the directions passed by the State Administrative Tribunal on 13.11.2018, .the Engineer -in-Chief, PWD, Shimla, rejected the claim for grant of work charge status on 11.09.2019 [Annexure A-1 with writ record], on the ground, that work charge establishment in the case of Class-III stood abolished on 01.04.2001 and, therefore, the writ petitioner being a Mason (Class-III) was rightly denied the work charge status.

IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 10.06.2024 BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE:

3. During the first hearing, the writ petition was dismissed by Learned Single Judge by recording finding that appellant-writ petitioner was regularized as a Mason in October, 2007 {sic he was regularized on 05.04.2007, as in rejection order, Annexure P-1} and though his claim for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years continuous daily waged service was rejected by the State Authorities on 11.09.2019 [Annexure P-1] and the petition was filed in June 2024 without any explanation as to why he had not approached the Court, within reasonable time, and, therefore, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The operative part of the impugned judgement dated. 10.06.2024, reads as under:-

“4. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Advocate General and having perused the averments made in the petition as well as the documents appended therewith, this court is of the considered view that the present petition is grossly hit by delay and laches. A perusal of the petition demonstrates that the petitioner was regularized in October, 2007 and he was claiming work charge status on co