IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No.2121 of 2019 Decided on: 01.01.2026 ________________________________________________________

Rajinder Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Another ...Respondents Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ra njan Sharma, Judge

1Whether approved for reporting?. No.

For the petitioner: Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy o Advocate General.

Ranjan Sharma, Judge Petitioner, Rajinder Kumar, initially filed hCWP No.6568 of 2011, before this Court and gon establishment of State Administrative Tribunal, the same was transferred to aforesaid Tribunal ; and upon its abolition, the matter came to be re-transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No 2121 of 2019, seeking the following relief(s):-

(i). That the respondent department may kindly be directed to grant regularization to the petitioner w.e.f. the year when he completed 8 years

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

of daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar years with all consequential benefits like arrears, seniority and other service Pbenefits as per the directions of this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice and fair play.”

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. Case as set up by Learned Counsel is that the petitioner w as appointed as a Driver in Respondent-Derpartment on 25.06.1996 on daily wage basis and was posted in Directorate of Rural Development, Shimla. It is averred that petitioner was regularized on 03.08.2007 [Annexure A -1] after having rendered more than 11 years of continuous daily wage service whereas in terms of the judgment of this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. & Others [CWP No. 2735 of 2010], the petitioner was entitled for regularization or work charge status from the date of completion of 08 years of continuous daily wage service but denial of these benefits has resulted in depriving the petitioner of the higher status as work charge employee and the higher pay in the applicable pay scale from the due date.

In this backdrop, petitioner has prayed for granting regularization or work ch.arge status (in the light of the judgement in the case of Rakesh Kumar), from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service with all consequential benefits.

NO REPLY-AFFIDAVIT BY STATE AUTHORITIES:

3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice by this Court on 19.08.2011, the State Authorities were directed to file the Reply-Affidavit within th ree months. Case records reveal that the State Authorities have not filed any Reply for the last more than 14 years and therefore, in these H circumstances, this Court proceeds to adjudicate the matter on merits.

DECLARATION OF LAW DURING PENDENCY OF WRIT PETITION:

4. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that though the claim of petitioner is for granting regularization from the date of completion of 08 years of daily waged service in terms of the mandate of this Court, in the case of Rakesh Kumar, but in fact, the judgement in the case of Rakesh Kumar (supra) relates to grant of work charge status from the date of. completion of 08 years of continuous daily waged service. Learned Counsel further submits that subsequent developments originating from the declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs Surajmani & another, Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, decided on 06.02.2025, support the claim of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service.

5. Heard, Ms. Archana Dutt, Learned Counsel H for the petitioner as well as Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Learned State Counsel for the Respondents and have gone through the material available on record.

ANALYSIS:

6. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status, which is a lesser relief vis-à-vis the claim for regularization, needs