The High Court of Himachal Pradesh reaffirmed that the directions regarding grant of ‘work-charged’ status after 8 years’ service, as laid down in Surajmani and affirmed in Nanak Chand, apply to Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board employees notwithstanding the abolition of work-charge establishment. This clarification binds the HPSEB, upholds Supreme Court precedent, and must be considered by public sector entities with similar factual matrices.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/16426/2025 of SITA RAM Vs THE HPSEBL AND OTHERS |
| CNR | HPHC010626622025 |
| Date of Registration | 16-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts and authorities under the Himachal Pradesh High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court decisions—Surajmani and Nanak Chand |
| Type of Law | Service law / Labour law (public employment) |
| Questions of Law | Whether HPSEB employees are entitled to ‘work-charged’ status after 8 years’ service despite the abolition of work-charged establishment. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The decision is grounded in the Supreme Court’s rejection of the HPSEB’s argument about the effect of abolition and relies on a consistent line of authority regarding rights accrued by continuous service culminating in work-charged status. The legal effect of judgments in rem and limitations on retrospective monetary benefits as in Ashwani Kumar were highlighted. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioners sought grant of ‘work-charged’ status after completion of 8 years’ service. HPSEB had previously argued in analogous proceedings that abolition of work-charge establishment should preclude such relief, but that argument was rejected by the Supreme Court. The petitioners claimed their facts were covered by Nanak Chand and Surajmani. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within the jurisdiction of Himachal Pradesh High Court |
| Persuasive For | Courts and authorities in other Indian states with similar facts or statutory background |
| Overrules | None |
| Distinguishes | None specifically mentioned; various Board arguments rejected as per Supreme Court’s prior consideration |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court has clarified that abolition of work-charge establishment by HPSEB (or similar entities) does not affect employees’ entitlement to ‘work-charged’ status after 8 years, in line with Supreme Court decisions.
- Relief is limited to notional benefits, as per Ashwani Kumar, unless otherwise directed.
- This judgment should be cited in analogous cases concerning employees excluded on technicalities like abolition of ‘work-charge’ posts.
- The decision reaffirms that such issues are judgments in rem, and State authorities are to make appointments as per law going forward (Uma Devi principle).
- State authorities may recover excess amounts but cannot deny status/benefit on grounds of prior abolition policy.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court considered the petitioners’ contention that their prayer is covered by the Supreme Court’s decisions in Nanak Chand and Surajmani.
- Referring to Nanak Chand, it was noted the HPSEB had previously argued that Surajmani did not apply post-abolition of work-charge establishment, but the Supreme Court rejected this defense.
- The Supreme Court observed that Board Standing Orders and records showed a work-charge establishment existed despite the claimed abolition.
- The operative portions from Surajmani, as adopted in Nanak Chand, mandate that eligible employees receive ‘work-charged’ status from the date of completion of 8 years’ service, subject to the limitations on actual (monetary) benefits specified in Ashwani Kumar.
- The relief is expressly limited to notional benefits, and recovery can be made if overpayments have occurred.
- Future employment must comply with the Supreme Court’s Uma Devi ruling (regular appointment process).
- The High Court thus directs HPSEB to process the petitioners’ cases in strict accordance with these binding Supreme Court principles.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought grant of ‘work-charged’ status from the date of completion of 8 years’ service with all incidental benefits.
- Submitted that their case and reliefs are covered by the Supreme Court’s decisions in Nanak Chand and Surajmani.
Respondent (HPSEB)
- Previously argued (before Supreme Court) that work-charge establishment had been abolished in 1986, so Surajmani and similar cases did not apply.
- The argument was noted but ultimately rejected by the Supreme Court, as recorded by the High Court in this judgment.
Factual Background
The writ petitions were filed by employees of the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (HPSEB) seeking to be granted ‘work-charged’ status from the date of completion of 8 years’ service, together with all incidental benefits. HPSEB had argued in earlier proceedings that the work-charge establishment had been abolished in 1986, claiming thereby that employees were ineligible. The petitioners contended that their case was directly covered by Supreme Court rulings in Nanak Chand and Surajmani. The relief was sought to be granted in light of these precedents.
Statutory Analysis
The court referred to the Standing Orders framed under the Factories Act, 1948, applicable to HPSEB Industrial Establishment, particularly Clause 5(b), which recognized work-charge establishment within the Board. No specific statutory provision beyond this or any interpretation outside of prior precedent was discussed in detail in the judgment.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded; the verdict was delivered by a single judge.
Procedural Innovations
No novel procedural directives or innovations were issued. The court directed the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners’ cases in accordance with the cited Supreme Court decisions within six weeks, with a communication obligation to the petitioners.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision applies and reaffirms binding Supreme Court precedent relating to ‘work-charged’ status and similar service law benefits.