Uma Dutt Sharma Vs State of Hp and Others

2. Petitioner-Uma Dutt and fifteen others, being Class-III Employees, have come up before this Court, in the instant petition, assailing the Impugned letter dated 07.01.2020 [Annexure P-10] and the Office Order dated 28.09.2021 [Annexure P-11], the benefit of work charge status and the resultant higher pay fixation granted to the petitioners on 30.05.2020 and on 26.05.2020 [Annexure P-6 and P-7] from the

¶16

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

¶17

2 -

¶18

2025:HHC:31485

¶19

date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service was withdrawn by the State Authorities by issuing an order on 02.06.2021 [Annexure R-1] and based on this, another order was issued on 28.09.2021 [Annexure P-11] ; with the prayer to grant /restore/continue the benefit of work charge status and benefits accruing therefrom to the petitioners with all consequential benefits.

¶20

FACTUAL MATRIX:

¶21

3. Precisely, the case set up is that the

¶22

petitioners were engaged as daily wagers in different capacities as Patwari, Work Inspectors, Masons, Fitters, Complaint Clerks, Surveyors, Technician, as Class-III on daily wage basis between September, 1993 to April 1996, [Annexure P-3 & P-5 colly] in the Irrigation and Public Health Department [now Jal Shakti Vibhag] of the State Government. They were regularized as such, in respective categories by the State Authorities after rendering more than 11-13 years of daily wage service between the period w.e.f 2007 to 2009. It is averred that the State Authorities

¶23

through its Secretary (IPH/JSV} took a decision as

¶24

3 -

¶25

2025:HHC:31485

¶26

contained in the Instructions on 07.01.2020, which was endorsed by the Engineer-in-Chief on 16.01.2020 [Annexure P-10 and Annexure P-11], to the field agencies directing to grant work charge status to daily wagers who have completed 8 years continuous service upto 31.05.2006. As a sequel to the above Instructions, the Respondents issued the orders on 30.05.2020 and 26.05.2020 [Annexure P-6 and P-7] extending/granting work charge status and resultant higher pay fixation to the petitioners from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service {between the period from 01.01.2002 to 01.01.2004} , respectively, but, abruptly the State Authorities issued an order on 28.09.2021 [Annexure P-11], based on the govt decision dated 02.06.2021 {Annexure R-1} ordering withdrawal of work charge status and higher pay fixation granted to petitioners in May 2020 from 01.01.2002 to 01.01.2004, illegally,

¶27

and in violation of the principles of natural justice and the settled law, and when, the Impugned order tends to relegate the petitioners from higher statusrank of work charge employees, who were drawing

¶28

4 -

¶29

2025:HHC:31485

¶30

pay in time scale to a daily wager for the relevant period and in tending to reduce their basic pay and in intending to affect recoveries from petitioners illegally, which was asserted to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is in

¶31

this background that the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the Impugned Order dated 07.01.2020 [Annexure P-10] and the Office Order dated 28.09.2021 [Annexure P-11], withdrawing the work charge status and the higher pay fixation and in intending to affect recoveries from the petitioners.

¶32

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT:

¶33

4. Upon filing of instant petition, this Court passed an interim order on 22.10.2021, staying implementation of Impugned Order dated 07.01.2020 [Annexure P-10] as well as the dated 28.09.2021 [Annexure P-11], withdrawing the work charge status of the petitioners.

¶34

STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN INSTANT PROCEEDINGS:

¶35

5. Pursuant to the issuance of notice, on 22.10.2021, the State Authorities filed Reply Affidavit dated 08.03.2022 of Superintending Engineer, Jal

¶36

5 -

¶37

2025:HHC:31485

¶38

Shakti Vibhag, Circle Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur. Perusal of the Reply-Affidavit indicates that the State Authorities issued an order on 07.01.2020 [Annexure P-10], decided to confer work charge status retrospectively from date of completion of 8 years of continuous service. Paras-2 to 17 of the Reply-Affidavit, the State Authorities have admitted that petitioners have rendered continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year since the year(s) 1994 and 1996 and have also completed 8 years of continuous service daily waged as on 31.12.2001 and 31.12.2003 in the Department. It is stated in Reply-Affidavit states that the petitioners did not complete 8 years of continuous service prior to cutoff date i.e. 31.03.2000 in terms of policy issued by the State Government in May, 2000 and therefore, they were not entitled for work charge status. It is further averred that the State Authorities issued another regularization policy in June, 2006, which provided cut-off date as 31.03.2004 so as to entitle daily wagers for regularization and since petitioners fulfilled the requisite 8 years of daily waged service

¶39

6 -

¶40

2025:HHC:31485

¶41

as on 31.01.2004, therefore, the petitioners were regularized as Class-III in their respective categories, between the period from 2006-2007. Perusal of Paras 2 to 17 and 20 of Reply-Affidavit, states that though the benefit of retrospective work charge status with higher pay fixation was granted from due date in May 2020 [Annexure P-6 & Annexure P-7] but the State Authorities issued another order on 02.06.2021

¶42

[Annexure R-1] withdrawing its earlier Instructions dated 07.01.2020 and based on this order, the resultant orders were issued on 28.09.2021 [Annexure P-11], withdrawing the work charge status as well as higher pay fixation granted to the petitioners from 01.01.2002 to 01.01.2004. It is averred that the petitioners filed the instant writ petition {CWP No 6576 of 2021}, wherein, this Court passed an interim order on 22.10.2021, staying implementation of coercive orders, including order dated 28.09.2021 {Annexure P-11}. Reply further states that in another writ petition, {CWP No. 2281 of 2020}, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus All Himachal PWD-IPH & Contractual Workers Union and another

¶43

7 -

¶44

2025:HHC:31485

¶45

filed by the State Authorities against the order of Learned State Administrative Tribunal on 09.07.2019, similar interim orders were passed on 22.10.2021, restraining the State Authorities from withdrawing the work charge status and restraining them from affecting recoveries. In Para-24 (A), State Authorities have stated that the claim of the petitioners are similar to the applicants/ petitioners in O.A. No. 1077 of 2017, against which CWP No. 2281 of 2020 is pending adjudication.

¶46

6. Heard, Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith, Learned Counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Learned Deputy Advocate General, for RespondentsState.

¶47

ANALYSIS:

¶48

7. Upon listing of this case, Learned Counsel for the parties fairly submit that the issue regarding entitlement of daily wagers for work charge status with pay fixation benefits accruing therefrom is

¶49

no longer res integra, in view of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State

¶50

of Himachal Pradesh & Others versus Surajmani

¶51

8 - 2025:HHC:31485

¶52

and Another [Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025 other connected matters, decided on 06.02.2025 ] , entitling the daily wagers for work charge status from

¶53

the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service only on “notional basis.”

¶54

8. State Authorities in its Reply-Affidavit have

¶55

stated that the case of the petitioners in instant

¶56

case is similar to the petitioners in O.A. No. 1077 of 2017, leading to CWP No. 2281 of 2020, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus All Himachal PWD-IPH & Contractual Workers Union and another.

¶57

Notably, the CWP No 2281 of 2020 as referred to above stands decided by this Court today vide a separate judgement, wherein, Class-III daily wagers

¶58

were held entitled for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of service and the orders issued in February-March 2020 in aforesaid case granting work charge as Class-III, were upheld and adversial orders on 02.06.2021 {Annexure P-VI, in aforesaid matter} was quashed and set-aside and held to be inoperative, ineffective and inapplicable

¶59

to the prejudice and disadvantage of the employes

¶60

9 -

¶61

2025:HHC:31485

¶62

9. In this background, once the adversial orders dated 02.06.2021, {Annexure R-1} which tends to withdraw the work charge status and the higher pay fixation granted to the petitioners in terms of the earlier judgements in the cases of Mool

¶63

Raj Upadhayaya versus State of Himachal Pradesh, (1994) Supp (2) SCC 316; and in State of Himachal Pradesh vs Gehar Singh (2007) 12 SCC 43 ; and the judgement passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3111 of 2016, State of Himachal Pradesh vs Ashwani Kumar, mandating that for granting work charge status there was neither the need for work charge establishment nor

¶64

its cessation or abolition would make any difference

¶65

and there was no pre-requirement for either the creation or availability of a post coupled with the fact that the SLP, converted as Civil Appeal filed by the State Authorities was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh versus Ashwani Kumar, [Civil Appeal No 5753 of 2019, decided on 22.07.2019].

¶66

The right and entitlement of daily wagers for work

¶67

10 -

¶68

2025:HHC:31485

¶69

charged status from date of completion of 8 years of service remained the subject matter of controversy in LPA No. 165 of 2021, tilted as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Surajmani and another and other connected matters. These matters stand adjudicated by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Others versus Surajmani and Another [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025 and other connected matters, decided on 06.02.2025, entitling the daily wagers for grant of work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service. In another matter, i.e. Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No (s). 11170 of 2024, in Re; The State of H.P. & Ors. Versus Janak Dev Sharma, decided on 26.05.2025 the Honble Supreme Court has reiterated that the judgment in the case of Surajmani (supra) is a judgment in rem and the directions contained in Surajmani (supra) would apply mutatis mutandis in all the cases having same facts. After passing of the judgement in the case of Surajmani (supra), the State Authorities through its Principal Secretary

¶70

11 -

¶71

2025:HHC:31485

¶72

(Finance) also issued a communication on 27.06.2025

¶73

for according work charged status to all daily wagers from date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service but the relief was limited to “notional benefits only, in terms of the discussion in Paras 8 to 12 of the judgement in the case of Surajmani (supra).

¶74

10. Based on above discussion, the entitlement

¶75

and right of the petitioners herein, for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service is approved/affirmed by this Court, in the light of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani [supra]. That being so, once the judgement in the case of Surajmani (supra), is a judgment in rem and the law declared by the Honble Supreme Court shall have retrospective application therefore, the adversial order dated 02.06.2021 {Annexure R-1} which tends to withdraw the work charge status and higher pay fixation benefits cannot be permitted either to operate. The entitlement, right and benefits admissible to the petitioners, which stands affirmed

¶76

12 -

¶77

2025:HHC:31485

¶78

by declaration of law in case of Surajmani (supra) cannot be permitted to be taken away or tinkered with, away or negated and denied in any manner. Accordingly, the adversial order dated 02.06.2021 {Annexure R-1} stands quashed and set-aside by this Court in CWP No 2281 of 2020, decided today {on 21.07.2025} separately. In these circumstances, this Court sees no reason as to why the petitioners herein [in CWP No. 6576 of 2021] who are similarly placed be not extended same benefits, so as to ensure parity and also to avoid the charge of

¶79

discrimination so as to ensure implementation of the judgement in the cases of Surajmani [supra],

¶80

and Janak Dev Sharma [supra] in letter and spirit.

¶81

Consequently, the adversial order dated 02.06.2021 [Annexure R-1] and communication dated 28.09.2021 [Annexure P-11] based thereon, which

¶82

tends to annul or withdraw or take away or deny the benefits of work charge status and higher pay fixation already granted to the petitioners on the basis of the orders issued in May 2020 by acting contrary to the law declared by the Honble Supreme

¶83

13 -

¶84

2025:HHC:31485

¶85

Court, in the cases of Surajmani (supra ) and Janak Dev Sharma (supra) cannot sustain and therefore, the adversial orders dated 02.06.2021 {Annexure R-1} and communication dated 28.09.2021 [Annexure P-11] and subsequent orders, if any, pushing the petitioners to a disadvantage and prejudicial position are quashed and set-aside and these adversial orders are rendered inoperative, ineffective, for all intends and purposes.

¶86

Resultantly, the petitioners herein are held entitled work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service with higher pay fixation benefits from due date(s); by granting and by otherwise restoring or continuing the work charged status already granted from due dates to the petitioners in May 2020 [vide Annexure P-1, P-2, P-4, P-6 and Annexure P-7 and such like orders], but by limiting the relief to “ notionally benefits”, in terms of the mandate of the Honble Supreme Court in case of Surajmani (supra).

¶87

14 -

¶88

2025:HHC:31485

¶89

ISSUE REGARDING RECOVERIES, IF ANY:

¶90

11. State Authorities have already granted the work charge status to the petitioners from the

¶91

date of completion of 8 years of daily wage service as Class-III and have also given higher pay fixation benefits in May 2020 from the due date. The accrued entitlement, right and benefits were decided to be withdrawn on 02.06.2021 {Annexure R-1} by issuing resultant order on 28.09.2021 [Annexure P-11]. This Court passed an order on 22.10.2021 staying the implementation of these adversial orders.

¶92

So far as the claim of the petitioners for granting/restoring/continuing the work charge status with all consequential benefits, including all past arrears is concerned, the aforesaid plea is misconceived, for the reason, that once the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra) has held the daily wagers for work charge status from date of completion of 8 years of daily waged service, by limiting relief only to “notional benefits”, therefore, the petitioners herein are held entitled for “notional benefits”, without any past arrears ,

¶93

2025:HHC:31485

¶94

15 -

¶95

and therefore, the plea for past arrears cannot be acceded to dehors the mandate of law in the

¶96

case of Surajmani (supra) and the same is turned down.

¶97

However, in terms of the directions passed by the Honble supreme Court in Para-11 of the judgment in case of Surajmani [supra] , once the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave liberty to the State to take such steps as it deems fit for recovering the amounts paid in excess i.e. in case past arrears have been given vis-à-vis entitlement for notional benefits only, as per law; therefore, this Court, at this stage, leaves it open for the State Authorities to examine the matter, hereinafter, qua the recovery of excess amount, if any, as it may deem fit, in accordance with law.

¶98

12. In an identical fact-situation, this Court has decided CWP No. 2281 of 2020, wherein, the adversial order dated 02.06.2021 {Annexure P-VI in aforesaid petition and which is Annexure R-1 herein} stands quashed, in view of the reasoning given in aforesaid petition, which shall apply

¶99

16 -

¶100

2025:HHC:31485

¶101

mutatis mutandis to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in-addition to the reasoning given hereinabove.

¶102

13. No other point was pressed/argued.

¶103

DIRECTIONS:

¶104

14. In view of the above discussion and for

¶105

the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present writ

¶106

petition is allowed , in following terms:-

¶107

(i) Instant Writ Petition, CWP No. 6576 of 2021, In Re: Uma Dutt Sharma and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh is allowed;

¶108

(ii) The Impugned communication dated 02.06.2021 [Annexure R-1 and Annexure P-11] and the resultant Order dated 28.09.2021 [Annexure P-11] tending to withdraw, annul, take away or deny work charge status to the petitioners are quashed and set-aside ;

¶109

(iii) State Authorities are directed to grant /restore the work charge status to the petitioners as Class-III, from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service, in applicable pay scale, in terms of orders issued in May 2020 w.e.f. 01.01.2002 to 01.01.2004 or such like due date “ notionally, but

¶110

17 -

¶111

2025:HHC:31485

¶112

without any past arrears;

¶113

(iv) Recoveries be not affected from the petitioners till the State Authorities take a decision regarding recovery of excess amount {due to release of past arrears vis-à-vis notional benefits} in the light of the directions contained in Para 11 of the judgement in case of Surajmani (supra);

¶114

(v) State Authorities are directed to comply with directions contained herein, within six weeks from the receipt of certified /downloaded copy of this judgment;

¶115

(vi) Parties to bear their respective costs.

¶116

In the aforesaid terms, the instant appeal and all pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall stand disposed of, accordingly.

¶117

(G.S. Sandhawalia) (Ranjan Sharma) Chief Justice Judge

¶118

July 21, 2025

¶119

[tm/Bhardwaj]

Uma Dutt Sharma v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uma Dutt Sharma 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Prem Saxena Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Ankit Sharma Vs the High Court of Hp and Anr.

Kali Ram Vs State of Hp and Others

State of Hp and Another Vs All Himachal PWD Iph and Contractual Workers Union and Another

State of Hp Vs Nand Lal and Others

State of Hp and Another Vs Rajinder Kumar and Others