J U D G M E N T

By way of instant appeal, the appellants have assailed judgment dated 0.3.09.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWPOA No.5566 of 2019.

2. By way of impugned judgement, the learned Single Judge has passed the following order:-

“5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and office order dated 17.11.2015 (Annexure A-6/P-6), is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to grant work charge status to the late husband of the petitioner from the date he had completed eight years of regular service in the department i.e. 1.1.2002, along with all consequential benefits. In the aforesaid terms, present petition …3…

stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.”

3. The learned Single Judge besides others relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 10.05.2018 in CWP No.3111 of 2016, titled State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Sh. Ashwani Kumar which was further upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

4. Shri Ashwani Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General has laid stress on the ground that the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Ashwani Kumar's case (supra) was a judgment in personam, therefore, the learned Single Judge has erred in granting the relief to the respondent herein, by way of impugned judgment.

5. Before adverting to the contention raised on behalf of the appellant, as noticed above, it will be relevant to have brief look at the factual matrix of the case.

6. Late Shri Het Ram, husband of respondent herein was engaged as daily wage Class-IV employee in the Forest Division Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., in 1994. His services were …4…

regularized w.e.f. 11.09.2007. Late Shri Het Ram, by way of CWP No.980/2013, approached this Court for relief of grant of work charge status in his favour from the date he had completed eight years of daily wage service. CWP No. 980 of 2013 was decided by this Court on 04.03.2013 with a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of judgment passed by this Court in Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others, CWP No.2735 of 2010. Vide order dated 17.11.2015, the Divisional Forest Officer, Karsog Forest Division, rejected the case of late Shri Het Ram in following terms:-

“Whereas, Government of Himachal Pradesh vide its letter No. Fin (Pen) A (3) dated 18/2010 dated 10.07.2015 asked the Pr. Chief Conservator of Forests (HoFF), HP to determine “whether HP Forest Department has work charge establishment or not.”

Whereas, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HoFF), HP Shimla-1 constituted a committee vide office order No.605/2015(E-III) dated 3.9.2015 to deliberate and determine “Whether HP Forest Department is a work charge establishment in terms of Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment in Jaswant Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1979)4SCC 440 p 456 or not?” The Committee after due diligence and …5…

deliberations submitted its report with the recommendation that “The HP Forest Department is not a work charged establishment” and the Govt. of HP has accepted and ratified the recommendations of the committee as conveyed by Addl. Chief Secretary (Forests) to the Govt. of HP vide letter No.

FFE-A (B) 17-37/2015 dated 24.09.2015.

Now therefore, taking into consideration that the Forests Department is not a work charged establishment, the claim of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status on completion of 8 years of service, in terms of Hon'ble High Court order dated 28.07.2010 passed in CWP No. 2735/2010- titled as Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of HP & Ors., which has been relief upon by the Honb'ble HP High Court in its judgment dated 4.3.2013 in CWP No. 980/2013- titled as Het Ram Vs State of HP & Ors is hereby considered and rejected because the regularization policy of the Govt. dated 3.4.200 and 6.5.2000 nor the judgment of Hon'ble HP High Court dated 28.07.2010 in CWP No. 2735 of 2010-titled as Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of HP is applicable in this particular case to the extent of grant of w