The Himachal Pradesh High Court affirms the precedent set by the Supreme Court in The State of Himachal Pradesh & others vs. Surajmani & another, confirming that notional benefits for grant of work charge status apply upon 8 years’ continuous service by daily wagers. The judgment upholds prior law, serving as binding authority for similar execution petitions in service matters within the state.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | EX.P./1622/2025 of VINOD KUMAR Vs STATE OF HP AND ORS |
| CNR | HPHC010450692025 |
| Date of Registration | 22-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JIYA LAL BHARDWAJ (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Division Bench (Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia & Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, J.) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Himachal Pradesh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent (Supreme Court’s Surajmani judgment) |
| Type of Law | Service Law – Regularisation/Work Charge Status of Daily Wagers |
| Questions of Law | Whether execution of earlier writ judgment for work charge status and notional/financial benefits must conform to the Supreme Court’s ratio in State of HP v. Surajmani. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | The State of Himachal Pradesh & others vs. Surajmani & another (Supreme Court, Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The execution petition sought implementation of a previous writ judgment granting service benefits. During pendency, the State produced official communication confirming that the petitioner was granted work charge status from 01.01.2008 (instead of 18.11.2008), with pay fixed notionally in accordance with the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Surajmani case. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh; relevant State authorities for execution of similar service law orders |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in service regularisation matters |
| Follows | The State of Himachal Pradesh & others vs. Surajmani & another (Supreme Court, 2025) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The grant of work charge status and attendant benefits to daily wagers must comply with the Supreme Court’s ratio regarding notional benefits and the date of effect.
- Actual financial benefits are not owed for the notional period unless specifically ordered.
- Execution petitions seeking enforcement of service regularisation will be disposed of as infructuous if authorities implement relief per the Surajmani precedent.
- Compliance via departmental communication may suffice where the Supreme Court’s ruling has been faithfully implemented.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that the execution petition sought enforcement of a previous writ regarding regularisation/service benefits.
- During the pendency, the State produced a communication from the Executive Engineer confirming compliance: grant of work charge status and fixation of pay notionally from 01.01.2008, aligning with the Supreme Court’s decision in Surajmani.
- The judgment specifically cites the Supreme Court’s direction in Surajmani (Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025), which governs the method and date for conferring such benefits to daily wagers.
- Having found full compliance with the apex court’s template, the high court concluded no further orders were required and disposed of the execution petition as infructuous.
- No further legal or factual inquiry was deemed necessary once the Supreme Court ratio was applied by the State authorities.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
Sought enforcement of service benefits (work charge status and pay fixation) as per earlier writ judgment.
Respondent (State)
Produced departmental communication demonstrating compliance with the judgment (grant of work charge status and pay fixation notionally per Supreme Court precedent).
Factual Background
The petitioner had earlier obtained a writ for regularisation/service benefits as a daily wager. An execution petition was filed due to alleged non-implementation. While the execution petition was pending, the State produced official correspondence granting the petitioner work charge status with effect from 01.01.2008 on a notional basis, as per the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Himachal Pradesh & others vs. Surajmani & another. The necessary pay fixation documents were also supplied.
Statutory Analysis
- The court applied and affirmed the statutory/judicial framework established by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, relating to regularisation and service benefits for daily wagers.
- The High Court underscored that relief in such matters is to be accorded on a notional basis as per apex court prescription; no statutory provision was specifically interpreted, but the case revolved around adherence to binding judicial precedent.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions were delivered; both judges agreed and signed the order.
Procedural Innovations
- The court accepted a communication from the Executive Engineer (produced through State counsel) as sufficient compliance, highlighting that official correspondence may suffice in execution proceedings where Supreme Court guidelines have been followed.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.