Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/3375/2026 on 15 October 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.3375 of 2026
Decided on: 15.10. 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Puran Singh
…..Petitioner
Versus State of H.P. and others
.....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate vice Mr.
A.K. Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
In view of the grievance of the petitioner, the issue raised herein and the reliance placed by the petitioner upon certain decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the matter has accordingly been heard at this stage.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i. That Annexure P-1 may be set aside/quashed and the respondents may be ordered to grant notional increments to the petitioner from the date he was granted work charge status with all the benefits incidental thereof and his pay may be fixed accordingly in the light of the order/judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in Jayanti Rathore’s case, Annexure P-2”
1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was conferred daily wage status in the year 1995 and his services were regularized in the year 2007. Pursuant to the decision rendered in The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Versus Surajmani & Anr.2, the petitioner was conferred work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2003 vide Annexure P-1, dated 23.12.2025. Petitioner’s grievance is that under office order dated 23.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) the respondents have not conferred annual increments to him for the period of his work charged service, i.e. between 01.01.2003 till the date of his regularization in the year 2007.
4. This issue has already been adjudicated upon in Jayanti Rathore and others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others3, wherein following operative directions were issued:- “8. In view of above discussion, and for the reasons recorded herein above, the instant petition is disposed of, in following terms:-
(i) . Claim of petitioners for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wages service [stand already given to petitioners 1 & 2 w.e.f. 01.01.2004 and to petitioners 3 to 6 w.e.f. 01.01.2005] is affirmed; being inconsonance with the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Surajmani (supra);
(ii) State Authorities shall extend the relief of “notional benefits” to the petitioners from the date of grant of 2 Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, decided alongwith connected civil appeals on 06.02.2025 3 CWPOA No.3103 of 2020, decided on 19.11.2025
work charge status [if not already granted] with annual increments till regularization with ‘notional benefits”, but without any past arrears;
(iii) . Claim of the petitioners for past arrears [wholly or in part] upon grant of work charge status is declined in terms of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surajmani (supra) which recognizes “notional benefits”;
(iv) . Parties to bear respective costs.”
Jayanti Rathore3 has directed the respondent- State to extend the relief of notional benefits from the date of grant of work charge status with annual increments till regularization with notional benefits, but without any past arrears. Admittedly, there is no interim order operating against the above directions issued in Jayanti Rathore3 till date.
5. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of notional increments during work charge service in terms of Jayanti Rathore3. This exercise be carried out within four weeks' time.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua October 15, 2026
Judge R.Atal