IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No. 184 of 2024 Reserved on: 14.08.2025 Announced on: 27.08.2025 ____________________________________________________________

Naresh Kumar ...Appellant Versus Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar, H.P. Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Palampur and another o ….Respondents Coram:

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

1Whether approveud for reporting?. Yes.

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

For the respondents: Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate.

Ranjan Sharma, Judge h Appellant-writ petitioner has come up before this Court, assailing the Judgment dated 10.06.2024 [referred to as Impugned Judgment] passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP No. 4983 of 2024, In re: Naresh Kumar versus Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar H.P. Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Palampur and another ; dismissing the writ petition filed by the Respondent- Employee [Naresh Kumar], for claiming work charged status on the ground of delay and laches.

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

FACTUAL MATRIX BEFORE THE WRIT COURT:

2. Naresh Kumar, writ petitioner, (now appellant)

a Lab Helper [Class-IV], had filed a CWPP No. 4983 of 2024, seeking the following relief:- “(i). That Annexure P-1 may be set aside /quashed and the respondents may be ordered to grant work charge status to thfe petitioner from the date he completed 8 years with all benefits incidental thereof.”

2(i). In CWP No. 4 983 of 2024, the appellant- writ petitioner hrerein, had set up a case that he was engaged as a daily waged labourer (DPL) by the Respondent-University in the year 1993, and he rendered continuous service with 240 days during th e year 1994 onwards and he completed 8 years on daily wage service and became eligible for grant of work charge status from 01.01.2002. However, the appellant-writ petitioner was regularized by the Respondent Authorities on 16.06.2007 and he joined as such on 19.06.2007 as Lab Helper [Class-IV] yet he was denied the work charge status. Against this denial, he filed CWP No 1095 of 2012, Charan Dass & another vs CSKHPKV, which was disposed of on 06.03.2015, with directions to consider the case of appellant-writ petitioner in light of the judgment in CWP No.2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, to examine the matter, even though th.e state had assailed the aforesaid judgement in appeal. Since nothing was done by the Respondent Authorities, therefore, Execution Pet No 497 of 2015 so filed was decided on 28.10.2015 with directions to take a decision in the matter. Resultantly, the Respondent University, rejected the claim on 10.12.2015, Annexure P-1, on the ground that the appellant-writ petitioner had already been regularized on post of Lab Helper on 19.06.2007 coupled with the fact that the Respondent University does not have a work charge establishment and, therefore, the writ petitioner was not entitled H for work charge status, which was not sustainable, when, the Respondent University has accorded work charge status to another similarly placed incumbent, namely Sarwan Kumar on 16.09.2023, Annexure P-2 w.e.f. 01.01.2001 i.e. the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service and therefore, the denial of work charge status and other benefits was discriminatory, illegal and unsustainable.

IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 10.06.2024 BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE: .

3. During first hearing, the writ petition was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge on the ground that firstly, the appellant-writ petitioner already stood regularized as Lab Helper 19.f06.2007; and secondly, his claim for work charge status was rejected by Respondent Authoritiets on 10.12.2015 [Annexure P-1] but the instant petition was filed in May 2024 but without submitting any explanation as to why he had not approached the Court, within a reasonable; and thirdly, order dated 16.09.2023, {Annexure P-2} was just an implementation ord