Roshan Thakur Vs State of Hp and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.4023 of 2020 Date of Decision: 04.07.2025

__________________________________________________________ Roshan Thakur …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another ….Respondents _________________________________________________________ Coram:_

¶4

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

¶5

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

For the Petitioner: Mr. C.N. Singh, Mr. Devender K. Sharma and Mr. Anshul Gandhi, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State.

¶7

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (Oral) :

¶8

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following

¶9

main reliefs:

¶10

“i) Issue a writ of Certiorari, Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or directions quashing the Order dated 09.01.2007 (Annexure P-2) for all intends and purposes.

¶11

ii) Issue writ of Certiorari, Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or directions directing the respondent department to confer work charge status, regularize the daily wage service of the Petitioner on the post of Work Inspector w.e.f. 01.11.2002 in terms of the regularization policy framed by the respondents department with all consequential benefits. iii) That accordingly the respondents department may kindly be directed to reaffix the pay ,allowance, increments of the Petitioner and other service benefits and pay the arrear in favour of the Petitioner along with 12% interest, within time bound manner.”

¶12

Brief facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that

¶13

in the month of November 1993, petitioner was engaged as Beldar on

¶14

daily wage basis in Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, Sub-

¶15

Division Sunni, Division Dhami, however, subsequently w.e.f.

¶16

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

¶17

2

¶18

30.10.1994, petitioner was engaged as Work Inspector on daily wage basis. In the year 2007, services of the petitioner as Work Inspector were regularized and he was posted as such in the office of HPPWD, SubDivision Sunni, District Shimla, Division Kumarsain.

¶19

Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Devender K. Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that though petitioner is entitled to be conferred work charge status after his having completed eight years of daily wage service, but such relief never came to be granted to him on the pretext that work charge establishment has ceased to exist. Though petitioner while placing reliance upon judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.3111 of 2016, titled as State of H.P. and Others Vs. Sh. Ashwani Kumar , decided on 10.05.2018 (Annexure P-4), which has been further affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 22.07.2019, passed in Civil Appeal No.5753 of 2019, titled as State of H.P. and Others Vs. Ashwani Kumar , (Annexure P-5), repeatedly reminded the respondents that cessation of work charge establishment is of no consequence as far as conferment of work charge status is concerned, but fact remains that till date, he has not been granted benefit of work charge status and as such, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinabove.

¶20

3

¶21

It is not in dispute that petitioner, who was initially engaged

¶22

as Beldar in the year 1993 on daily wage basis, was engaged as Work Inspector on 30.10.1994 on daily wage basis and subsequently in the year 2007, his daily wage services were regularized against the post of Work Inspector and since then, he has been working in afore capacity in the office of HPPWD, Sub-Division Sunni, District Shimla, Division Kumarsain. It is not in dispute that in Ashwani Kumar case (supra), Division Bench of this Court has categorically held that work charge establishment is not a prerequisite for conferment of work charge status and non-conversion of work charge employees into regular employees would not make the existence of such establishment non-existent. Aforesaid judgment though was laid challenge before the Hon’ble Apex Court by respondents/State by way of Civil Appeal No.5753 of 2019, but fact remains that same was not interfered with, save and except that benefit, if any, arising on account of conferment of work charge status shall be paid on notional basis, till the filing of the petition. Subsequently, afore issue again came to be decided by the Division Bench of this Court in bunch of cases, lead case bearing LPA No.165 of 2021, titled as State of H.P. and Others Vs. Surajmani and Another , along with connected matters. Division Bench of this Court in afore case again upheld the judgment passed by this Court in Ashwani Kumar (supra). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA, detailed hereinabove,

¶23

4

¶24

respondents/State preferred SLP bearing Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, that also came to be decided on 06.02.2025, on the analogy of Ashwani Kumar (supra). Since issue with regard to cessation of work charge establishment stands already decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court and by now it is well-settled that work charge establishment is not a prerequisite for conferment of work charge status and non-conversion of work charge employees into regular employees would not make the existence of such establishment non-existent, there appears to be no reason for respondents to not grant the benefit, as is being claimed by the petitioner in the instant petition.

¶25

Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and respondents are directed to confer the work charge status upon the petitioner w.e.f. 01.11.2002, i.e. on completion of eight years of daily wage service with all consequential benefits, but qua afore period, petitioner shall not be granted any actual benefits, rather such benefits qua the afore period shall be on notional basis and actual monetary benefits, if any, shall be granted to the petitioner from the date of filing of the petition at hand. Since petitioner has been fighting for his rightful claim for quite long, this Court hopes and trusts that needful in terms of instant order shall be done expeditiously, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from today.

¶26

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶27

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶28

July 04, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)

Roshan Thakur v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Thakur v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dixit Mahant Vs the State of Hp and Others

Amit Kumar and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Uttam Sain Vs State of Hp and Others

Krishan Lal Vs the Hrtc and Others

Pabli Vs the State of Hp and Others

Gulabi Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others