IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5973 of 2024 Date of Decision: 17.11.2025 __________________________________________________________

Shri Roshan Lal ……..Petitioner Versus H State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? ¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General. __________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:

C“I. That the impugned orders dated 07.10.2016 (Annexure P-14) and order dated 14.08.2019 (Annexure P-16) passed by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside.

II. That the Respondents may kindly be directed to grant work charge hstatus to the Petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1994 and fixation of pay notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1994 and grant of arrears of salary w.e.f. 16.08.2001 i.e. on actual basis from the date of Award till date with interest throughout.

gFurther, the respondents may kindly be directed to superannuate the Petitioner after attaining the age of 60 yeas as per the notification of the Government as the Petitioner has been granted work-charge status/regularisation before the year 2001.”

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that petitioner herein was initially engaged as daily wage Beldar in the year 1984 and in afore capacity, he worked till 1990, whereafter he allegedly abandoned the job, on account of his oral termination. On account of his oral termination, petitioner along with other similarly situate persons raised industrial dispute, which ultimately came to be referred to H.P. Labour

1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Court, Shimla and was registered as Reference No.16 of 1997. Though in afore proceedings, respondents herein refuted the claPim of the petitioner that he was initially engaged as as daily wage Beldar in the year 1984 and his services were disengaged in the year 1990, but Labour Court on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record passed Award dated 16.08.2001, thereby directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner along with other 21 workmen in service without back wages, but with seniority.

3. Pursuant to aforesaid Award passed by the Labour Court, petitioner was reinstated as daily wage Beldar w.e.f. 01.11.2001 and offered appointment on regular basis vide Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Division Nahan, Sirmaur, order dated 27.02.2003 prospectively, pursuant to which he joined on 25.05.2003. Subsequently, respondents having taken note of service rendered by the petitioner on daily wage basis ordered his regularisation w.e.f. 27.02.2003, but denied him wages for Hbreak period i.e. w.e.f. 1984 to 01.11.2001.

4. In nutshell, grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Nishant Khidtta, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that since in terms of Award dated 16.08.2001, which has attained finality, petitioner shall be deemed to have been in service on Daily Wage basis w.e.f. 1984, his services ought to have been regularised in the year 1994, after his having completed 10 years service on daily wage basis with 240 days in each calendar year, but respondents wrongly granted him benefit of regularisation w.e.f. 2003 i.e. after completion of 19 years of daily wage service with 24P0 days in each calendar year.

5. It is also claimed at the behest of petitioner that he is entitled to actual benefits w.e.f. date of Award i.e. 1 6.08.2001, but he has been given actual benefits w.e.f. 24.12.2009, as per law laid down in Jai Dev Gupta’s case. Besides above, it has also been claimed that since petitioner was engaged prior to 10.05.2001, he shall be deemed to have retired after