1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.165 of 2021 a/w connected matters .

Reserved on : 29th November, 2022 Decided on : January 12, 2023

1. LPA NO.165 OF 2021 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... APPELLANTS VERSUS SURAJMANI AND ANR. ...... RESPONDENTS

2. CWP NO.6245 OF 2011 RAJEEV KUMAR ...... PETITIONER r VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

3. CWP NO.2097 OF 2015 RAMESH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

4. CWP NO.1946 OF 2016 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONER VERSUS KHEM RAJ ...... RESPONDENT

5. CWP NO.2398 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS NANAK CHAND AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 2

6. CWP NO.2713 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS .

VERSUS BALBIR SINGH ...... RESPONDENT

7. CWP NO.2763 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS SHARWAN KUMAR ...... RESPONDENT

8. CWP NO.2764 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS VINOD KUMAR ...... RESPONDENT

9. CWP NO.2765 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS SUBHASH CHAND ...... RESPONDENT

10. CWP NO.2766 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS SATISH KUMAR ...... RESPONDENT

11. CWP NO.2769 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS RAJESH KUMAR ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 3

12. CWP NO.2770 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS .

VERSUS KASHMIR SINGH ...... RESPONDENT

13. CWP NO.2771 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS LEKH RAJ ...... RESPONDENT

14. CWP NO.2772 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS KASHMIR SINGH ...... RESPONDENT

15. CWP NO.2804 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS PRAKASH CHAND ...... RESPONDENTS

16. CWP NO.2806 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS VIJAY KUMAR ...... RESPONDENT

17. CWP NO.2827 of 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS BIDHI CHAND ...... RESPONDENT ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 4

18. CWP NO.2828 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS .

VERSUS RAMESH CHAND ...... RESPONDENT

19. CWP NO.2871 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS JAUNFI RAM ...... RESPONDENT

20. CWP NO.2876 of 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS KRISHAN PAL ...... RESPONDENT

21. CWP NO.2877 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS PRATAP CHAND ...... RESPONDENT

22. CWP NO.2878 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS BISHAN CHAND ...... RESPONDENT

23. CWP NO.2879 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS SUBHASH CHAND ...... RESPONDENT ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 5

24. CWP NO.2880 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS .

VERSUS SUSHIL KUMAR ...... RESPONDENT

25. CWP NO.2881 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS RAKESH KUMAR ...... RESPONDENT

26. CWP NO.2932 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS SURENDER SINGH ...... RESPONDENT

27. CWP NO.2973 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS VIPIN KUMAR ...... RESPONDENT

28. CWP NO.2979 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS KAMALJEET ...... RESPONDENT

29. CWP NO.3027 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS DALIP SINGH ...... RESPONDENT ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 6

30. CWP NO.3042 OF 2016 STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS .

VERSUS VIDYA PRAKASH ...... RESPONDENT

31. CWP NO.3054 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS SUKH LAL ...... RESPONDENT

32. CWP NO.3205 OF 2016 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS HIRA SINGH RANA AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

33. CWP NO.3301 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS NAROTAM SINGH ......RESPONDENT

34. CWP NO.3304 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS TEJ SINGH ...... RESPONDENT

35. CWP NO.341 OF 2017 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS SEWAK RAM ...... RESPONDENT ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 7

36. CWP NO.414 OF 2017 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS .

VERSUS AMAR SINGH AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

37. CWP NO.614 OF 2017 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS MANISH SHARMA ...... RESPONDENT

38. CWP NO.1136 OF 2017 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS RAM DAYAL AND ANOTHER ......RESPONDENTS

39. CWP NO.2043 OF 2017 STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS JASWANT SINGH ...... RESPONDENT

40. CWP NO.2201 OF 2017 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS MEHAR CHAND ...... RESPONDENT

41. CWP NO.45 OF 2018 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS JOGINDER SINGH ...... RESPONDENT ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 8

42. CWP NO.590 OF 2018 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS .

VERSUS MEHAR CHAND ...... RESPONDENT

43. CWP NO.1068 OF 2018 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS LAL SINGH ...... RESPONDENT

44. CWP NO.1069 of 2018 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS BHUP SINGH ...... RESPONDENT

45. CWP NO.1405 OF 2018 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS DAMODAR ...... RESPONDENT

46. CWP NO.2482 OF 2018 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS ROSHAN LAL ...... RESPONDENT

47. CWP NO.2650 OF 2018 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS MAKHAN SINGH ...... RESPONDENT ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 9

48. CWP NO.2666 OF 2018 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS .

CHAUDHARY SARWAN KUMAR HIMACHAL PRADESH KRISHI VISHVAVIDYALAYA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS SARWAN KUMAR ...... RESPONDENT ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 16

90. CWP NO.1493 OF 2019 MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHAMBA ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS KEHAR SINGH AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

91. CWP NO.1494 OF 2019 MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHAMBA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS JAISO AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

92. CWP NO.1495 OF 2019 MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHAMBA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS KISHORI AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

93. CWP NO.1496 OF 2019 MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHAMBA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS TARVIJO AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

94. CWP NO.1716 OF 2019 PRITHVI CHAND SHARMA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS

95. CWP NO.2053 OF 2019 RAM LAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 17

96. CWP NO.2118 OF 2019 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS .

VERSUS VIJAY KUMAR ...... RESPONDENT

97. CWP NO.2119 OF 2019 THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS ABDESH SHARMA ...... RESPONDENT

98. CWP NO.2193 OF 2019 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS KULDEEP SINGH ...... RESPONDENT

99. CWP NO.2481 OF 2019 BALAK RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

100. CWP NO.2671 OF 2019 RAM BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

101. CWP NO.2673 OF 2019 MEERA BAI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 18

102. CWP NO.2674 OF 2019 ISHWAR SINGH AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

103. CWP NO.2675 OF 2019 CHITTER BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

104. CWP NO.2676 OF 2019 DILE RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

105. CWP NO.2677 OF 2019 OM PRAKASH AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

106. CWP NO.2682 OF 2019 SURAT RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

107. CWP NO.2683 OF 2019 VIJAY KUMAR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 19

108. CWP NO.2684 OF 2019 MOHINDER SINGH ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

109. CWP NO.2685 OF 2019 KHUSHAL CHAND ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

110. CWP NO.2686 OF 2019 NAR KALI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

111. CWP NO.2835 OF 2019 ROOP SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS 112 CWP NO.3551 OF 2019 THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONER VERSUS GULAB DEVI ...... RESPONDENT

113. CWP NO.3600 OF 2019 ROOP SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 20

114. CWP NO.3601 OF 2019 KHEM CHAND ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

115. CWP NO.3790 OF 2019 JARMU RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

116. CWP NO.3791 of 2019 OM PARKASH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

117. CWP NO.3792 OF 2019 HARSH KUMAR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

118. CWP NO.3793 OF 2019 TEK RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

119. CWP No.4040 OF 2019 KISHAN SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 21

120. CWP NO.4130 OF 2019 VISHWA NATH ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

121. CWP NO.4200 OF 2019 RAMESH CHAND AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS

122. CWP NO.4328 OF 2019 DILA RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

123. CMP.M-1905 OF 2019 STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS YASHPAL AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

124. CWPOA NO.292 OF 2019 SUKH DAYAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

125. CWPOA NO.294 OF 2019 SUNIL KUMAR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 22

126. CWPOA NO.417 OF 2019 YOG RAJ ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

127. CWPOA NO.1032 OF 2019 RAM LAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

128. CWPOA NO.2680 OF 2019 DEV DITI AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

129. CWPOA NO.3290 OF 2019 TULSI RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

130. CWPOA NO.4950 OF 2019 TASHI PALMOO ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

131. CWPOA NO.5004 OF 2019 SHANTI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 23

132. CWPOA NO.5006 OF 2019 AMAR SINGH ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

133. CWPOA NO.5017 OF 2019 SITA DEVI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

134. CWPOA NO.5101 OF 2019 ASHA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

135. CWPOA NO.5108 OF 2019 BAM BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

136. CWPOA NO.5110 OF 2019 POONAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

137. CWPOA NO.5112 OF 2019 VED KUMARI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 24

138. CWPOA NO.5215 OF 2019 KANCHO DEVI ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

139. CWPOA NO.5376 OF 2019 YOG RAJ AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

140. CWPOA NO.5511 of 2019 MAHINDER SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

141. CWPOA NO.5512 OF 2019 OM PRAKASH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS

142. CWPOA NO.5527 OF 2019 LEKH RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

143. CWPOA NO.5530 OF 2019 ROOP SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 25

144. CWPOA NO.5688 OF 2019 RAJESH KUMAR ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

145. CWPOA NO.5792 OF 2019 RAM KRISHAN ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

146. CWPOA NO.5798 OF 2019 KALI DEVI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

147. CWPOA NO.5847 OF 2019 KHER SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

148. CWPOA NO.5857 OF 2019 BAHADUR SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

149. CWPOA NO.5971 OF 2019 KESHAV RAM AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 26

150. CWPOA NO.6119 OF 2019 BABU RAM ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

151. CWPOA NO.6135 OF 2019 BABU RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

152. CWPOA NO.6202 OF 2019 YOGENDER SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

153. CWPOA NO.6256 OF 2019 BHAGAT RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Y. S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY SOLAN ...... RESPONDENT

154. CWPOA NO.6278 OF 2019 PRAKASH CHAND ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

155. CWPOA NO.6284 OF 2019 SATYA PAL SHARMA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS DR. Y.S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY ...... RESPONDENT ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 27

156. CWPOA NO.6290 OF 2019 GIAN CHAND ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

157. CWPOA NO.6336 OF 2019 SANJAY SHARMA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

158. CWPOA NO.6540 OF 2019 NIKA RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

159. CWPOA NO.6685 OF 2019 SOHAN LAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

160. CWPOA NO.7085 OF 2019 SHUKRU RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

161. CWPOA NO.7089 OF 2019 HET RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 28

162. CWPOA NO.7171 OF 2019 JAGPAL SINGH ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

163. CWPOA NO.7250 OF 2019 DEV RAJ PUNDIR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

164. CWPOA NO.7760 OF 2019 GUMAN SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

165. CWPOA NO.7762 OF 2019 RAM LAL AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

166. CWPOA NO.7768 OF 2019 GYAR SINGH AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

167. CWPOA NO.7837 OF 2019 DESH RAJ ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 29

168. EX.PT-26 OF 2019 KHERU RAM ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

169. EX.PT NO.48 OF 2019 GOPAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

170. EX.PT NO.107 OF 2019 GORE ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

171. CWP NO.21 OF 2020 PRAMODH SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

172. CWP NO.117 OF 2020 KARAM CHAND ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

173. CWP NO.493 OF 2020 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 30

174. CWP NO.715 OF 2020 BANTA SINGH ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

175. CWP NO.751 OF 2020 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS DESH RAJ ...... RESPONDENT

176. CWP NO.809 OF 2020 SUDHAMA RAM AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

177. CWP NO.1162 OF 2020 NAND LAL AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

178. CWP NO.1164 of 2020 NAROTAM RAM AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

179. CWP NO.1346 OF 2020 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS DESH RAJ ...... RESPONDENT ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 31

180. CWP NO.1741 OF 2020 GULAM DEEN ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

181. CWP NO.1762 OF 2020 MAST RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

182. CWP NO.2311 OF 2020 GOPAL CHAND ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

183. CWP NO.2318 OF 2020 BISHAN DASS ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

184. CWP-2333 OF 2020 HIRA LAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

185. CWP NO.2335 OF 2020 DIL BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 32

186. CWP NO.2371 OF 2020 KHUB RAM ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

187. CWP NO.2394 OF 2020 SURESH KUMAR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

188. CWP NO.2404 OF 2020 CHUNI LAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

189. CWP NO.2405 OF 2020 SANJAY SHARMA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

190. CWP NO.2417 OF 2020 BASANT RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

191. CWP NO.2420 OF 2020 SHEELA THAKUR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 33

192. CWP NO.2466 OF 2020 DEV KUMAR SHARMA ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

193. CWP NO.2467 OF 2020 NARESH KUMAR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

194. CWP NO.2471 OF 2020 ROSHAN LAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

195. CWP NO.2560 OF 2020 RAM KALI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

196. CWP NO.2561 OF 2020 MAN BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

197. CWP NO.2562 OF 2020 DHANSARA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 34

198. CWP NO.2564 OF 2020 PAVITA DEVI ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

199. CWP NO.2565 OF 2020 NAINSARA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

200. CWP NO.2566 OF 2020 BHIM BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

201. CWP NO.2567 OF 2020 DAL BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

202. CWP NO.2915 OF 2020 KAILASH CHAND ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

203. CWP NO.2960 of 2020 NAINA DEVI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 35

204. CWP NO.2963 OF 2020 SUNDER SINGH ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

205. CWP NO.2987 OF 2020 SHER SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

206. CWP NO.3014 OF 2020 SHANTI DEVI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

207. CWP NO.3037 OF 2020 TEJ BEER SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

208. CWP NO.3143 OF 2020 RAM DAYAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

209. CWP NO.3144 OF 2020 HET RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 36

210. CWP NO.3239 OF 2020 NARAYAN DASS ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

211. CWP NO.3371 OF 2020 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS KAILASH CHAND AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

212. CWP NO.3424 OF 2020 JEET RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

213. CWP NO.3536 OF 2020 DHARAM SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

214. CWP NO.3570 OF 2020 NIRMALA DEVI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HEALTH) AND OTHERS...... RESPONDENTS

215. CWP NO.3649 OF 2020 ALAM CHAND ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 37

216. CWP NO.3653 OF 2020 SOM BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

217. CWP NO.3804 OF 2020 RAVINDER KUMAR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

218. CWP NO.3900 OF 2020 UMESH LARZOO ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

219. CWP NO.3904 OF 2020 EK RAJ AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

220. CWP NO.3972 OF 2020 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONER VERSUS RATTAN CHAND ...... RESPONDENT

221. CWP NO.4036 OF 2020 GEETA RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 38

222. CWP NO.4060 OF 2020 DUNI CHAND ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

223. CWP NO.4061 OF 2020 BALBIR SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

224. CWP NO.4064 OF 2020 LEKH RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

225. CWP NO.4136 OF 2020 STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS DEVI SINGH ...... RESPONDENT

226. CWP NO.4171 OF 2020 BALBIR SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

227. CWP NO.4247 OF 2020 BHIM BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 39

228. CWP NO.4272 OF 2020 HUKAM CHAND AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS

229. CWP NO.4289 OF 2020 MOHAN LAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

230. CWP NO.4396 OF 2020 BHAGAT RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

231. CWP NO.4549 OF 2020 ISHWAR DASS AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

232. CWP NO.4662 OF 2020 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS DHALE RAM ...... RESPONDENT

233. CWP NO.4779 OF 2020 RADHA DEVI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 40

234. CWP NO.4781 OF 2020 ROSHAN LAL ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

235. CWP NO.4782 OF 2020 URMILA DEVI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

236. CWP NO.4785 OF 2020 JAGGI RAM SHARMA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

237. CWP NO.4786 OF 2020 OM PRAKASH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

238. CWP NO.4788 OF 2020 EKA BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

239. CWP NO.4789 OF 2020 RAM KALI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 41

240. CWP NO.4892 OF 2020 PREM DUTT ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

241. CWP NO.4897 OF 2020 GURDEV SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

242. CWP NO.4898 OF 2020 CHUNI LAL AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

243. CWP NO.5193 OF 2020 VINOD KUMAR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

244. CWP NO.5194 of 2020 RAM GOPAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

245. CWP NO.5218 OF 2020 SHER SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS HP STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORP LTD AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 42

246. CWP NO.5457 OF 2020 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS .

302. EX.PT. NO.147 OF 2020 in CWP-1095 of 2011 DESH RAJ ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENT

303. CWP NO.19 OF 2021 TRILOK CHAND ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS

304. CWP NO.29 OF 2021 AMRIK SINGH AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

305. CWP NO.30 OF 2021 PAWAN KUMAR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 52

306. CWP NO.37 OF 2021 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS .

CHAUDHARY SARWAN KUMAR HIMACHAL PRADESH VISHVAVIDYALAYA ...... RESPONDENT

475. LPA NO.162 OF 2021 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... APPELLANTS VERSUS HEM RAJ ...... RESPONDENT

476. EX.PT NO.37 OF 2021 RAJENDER PARKASH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS

477. EX.PT. NO.187 OF 2021 SITA MAYA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

478. EX.PT. NO.210 OF 2021 PREM LAL ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

479. EX.PT. NO.239 OF 2021 MAYA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 81

480. EX.PT. NO.240 OF 2021 KARAN BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

481. EX.PT. NO.241 OF 2021 VISHNU MAYA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

482. EX.PT. NO.243 OF 2021 NISHA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

483. EX.PT. NO.293 OF 2021 SUNITA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

484. EX.P.NO.28 OF 2021 in CWP NO.254 OF 2011 HIND NARESH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

485. EX.P. NO.54 OF 2021 BHUP RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 82

486. CWP NO.118 OF 2022 SAROJ DEVI ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS THE PROJECT DIRECTOR CUM DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HIMURJA ...... RESPONDENTS

487. CWP NO.266 OF 2022 SUKH RAM AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

488. CWP NO.520 OF 2022 TULA RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

489. CWP NO.576 OF 2022 RAJINDER SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

490. CWP NO.764 OF 2022 NARPAT RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

491. CWP NO.802 OF 2022 GANGU RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 83

492. CWP NO.803 OF 2022 MEENA KUMARI ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

493. CWP NO.805 OF 2022 BHAJAN DASS ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

494. CWP NO.806 OF 2022 NIRMAN SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

495. CWP NO.810 OF 2022 SAVITRI DEVI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

496. CWP NO.814 OF 2022 BIMLA DEVI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

497. CWP NO.835 OF 2022 SUKH RAM AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 84

498. CWP NO.926 OF 2022 NETAR SINGH ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

499. CWP NO.1179 OF 2022 SAGRU RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

500. CWP NO.1180 OF 2022 JANAK DEV SHARMA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

501. CWP NO.1194 OF 2022 SALAM KHAN ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

502. CWP NO.2077 OF 2022 SUNITA DEVI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

503. CWP NO.2587 OF 2022 PARMINDER SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 85

504. CWP NO.2593 OF 2022 OM PRAKASH ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

505. CWP NO.2597 OF 2022 GITA RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

506. CWP NO.2627 OF 2022 DURGA DASS ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

507. CWP NO.2640 OF 2022 MOHAR SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

508. CWP NO.2642 OF 2022 RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

509. CWP NO.2949 OF 2022 NARAIN SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 86

510. CWP NO.3013 OF 2022 SANJAY KUMAR ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

511. CWP NO.3666 OF 2022 RAJINDER BINDRA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS

512. CWP NO.4253 OF 2022 KANTA DEVI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

513. CWP NO.4853 OF 2022 NAR BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS 514 CWP NO.4913 OF 2022 SONKI RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

515. CWP NO.4921 OF 2022 PARTAP SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 87

516. CWP NO.4925 OF 2022 NARAYAN SINGH ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

517. CWP NO.4932 OF 2022 VINOD KUMAR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

518. CWP NO.4933 OF 2022 RAM LOK ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

519. CWP NO.4934 OF 2022 BARDU RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

520. CWP NO.4935 OF 2022 SALIG RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

521. CWP NO.4937 OF 2022 SUBHASH CHAND ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 88

522. CWP NO.4938 OF 2022 LAIQ RAM ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

523. CWP NO.4939 OF 2022 RAM DUTT ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

524. CWP NO.4940 OF 2022 PREM LAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

525. CWP NO.4950 OF 2022 PYARE LAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

526. CWP NO.4994 OF 2022 BIJA RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

527. CWP NO.4995 OF 2022 KHAYLI RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 89

528. CWP NO.5000 OF 2022 GANGA DHAR ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

529. CWP NO.5249 OF 2022 PURAN CHAND ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

530. CWP NO.5417 OF 2022 JAI SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

531. CWP NO.5585 OF 2022 MANOHAR LAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

532. CWP NO.5775 OF 2022 SITA RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

533. CWP NO.5780 OF 2022 MOHAN LAL SHARMA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 90

534. CWP NO.5804 OF 2022 CHHANGU RAM ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

535. CWP NO.5859 OF 2022 SHER SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

536. CWP NO.5869 OF 2022 CHUNI LAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

537. CWP NO.5870 OF 2022 UDAY MALHOTRA AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

538. CWP NO.5919 OF 2022 AJMER SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

539. CWP NO.5920 OF 2022 RAJ KAPOOR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 91

540. CWP NO.6013 OF 2022 MOHAN LAL ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

541. CWP NO.6037 OF 2022 GEETA DEVI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

542. CWP NO.6039 OF 2022 TULE RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

543. CWP NO.6240 OF 2022 DOLMA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

544. CWP NO.6297 OF 2022 GHANSHYAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

545. CWP NO.6300 OF 2022 SANTOSH SHARMA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 92

546. CWP NO.6301 OF 2022 GAFOOR AHMAD ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

547. CWP NO.6449 OF 2022 JAGDISH CHAND ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

548. CWP NO.6457 OF 2022 SANJEEV KUMAR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

549. CWP NO.6460 OF 2022 SAROJ KUMARI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

550. CWP-6609 OF 2022 DAL BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

551. CWP NO.6610 OF 2022 KUMARI SOFIA AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 93

552. CWP NO.6744 OF 2022 PALAS RAM ...... PETITIONER .

VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

553. CWP NO.7655 OF 2022 NARAIN DASS ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

554. CWP NO.7666 OF 2022 DESH RAJ ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

555. CWP NO.7697 OF 2022 SURENDER PAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

556. CWP NO.7945 OF 2022 VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS

557. LPA NO.17 OF 2022 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... APPELLANTS VERSUS JAI PRAKASH AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 94

558. LPA NO.32 OF 2022 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... APPELLANTS .

VERSUS DAULAT RAM AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS

559. LPA NO.33 OF 2022 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... APPELLANTS VERSUS MISHRU RAM ...... RESPONDENT

560. LPA NO.81 OF 2022 STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... APPELLANTS VERSUS SMT. LALITA THAKUR AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS

561. LPA NO.137 OF 2022 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... APPELLANTS VERSUS SANT RAM ...... RESPONDENT

562. LPA NO.161 OF 2022 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... APPELLANTS VERSUS YASHWANT SINGH AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS

563. LPA NO.176 OF 2022 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER HIMURJA AND OTHERS ...... APPELLANTS VERSUS GURBACHAN SINGH ...... RESPONDENT ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 95

564. LPA NO.185 OF 2022 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... APPELLANTS .

VERSUS JALAM SINGH ...... RESPONDENT

565. LPA NO.186 OF 2022 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... APPELLANTS VERSUS BHIM SEN ...... RESPONDENT _____________________________________________________________ Coram: r The Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.A. Sayed, Chief Justice The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sabina, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr. Yudhbir Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.

For the Respondents : M/s. Ashwani K. Gupta, Adarsh K. Vashista, Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Surinder Saklani, Abhishek Sharma, Subhash Mohan Snehi, Naresh Kaul, D.K Khanna, Vijay Kumar, Neel Kamal Sood, Suresh Singh Saini, Tanuj Thakur, Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Vishwa Bhushan, Karan Singh Parmar, Advocates and Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr. Yudhbir Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for the petitioners in the respective writ petitions. Mr. Ashok Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner(s)/HPSEB Ltd.

Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with M/s.Rahul Mahajan, Avinash Jaryal, Suneel 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Awasthi, S.C. Sharma, Neel Kamal Sood, Shalini Thakur, Devinder Sharma, Manohar Lal Sharma, Sandeep Chauhan, Devender K. Sharma, Jaidev Thakur, Dalip K. Sharma, Tanuj Thakur, Yogesh .

Kumar Chandel, Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Kulwant Chauhan, Naresh Verma, Varun Rana, Vikrant Thakur, Naresh K. Sharma, Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Vinod Thakur, Tara Chand Chauhan, Rangil Singh, Karan Singh Parmar, Advocates, for the private respondents.

Mr. Tek Ram Sharma and Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocates, for the respondent-Accountant General.

LPA No. 165/2021 a/w CWP Nos.6245 of 2011, 2097 of 2015, 1946, 2398, 2713, 2763 to 2766, 2769 to 2772, 2804, 2806, 2827, 2828, 2871, 2876 to 2881, 2932, 2973, 2979, 3027, 3042 3054, 3205, 3301, 3304 of 2016, 341, 414, 614, 1136, 2043, 2201 of 2017, 45, 590, 1068, 1069, 1405, 2482, 2650, 2666, 2770, 2795, 2922, 2975, 2976, 2978 to 2982, 3077 of 2018, 64, 88, 109, 168, 176, 185, 245 to 247, 250, 256, 275, 329, 334, 365, 556, 626, 706, 826, 838, 886, 1065, 1196, 1232, 1235, 1317, 1396, 1493 to 1496, 1716, 2053, 2118, 2119, 2193, 2481, 2671, 2673 to 2677, 2682 to 2686, 2835, 3551, 3600, 3601, 3790 to 3793, 4130, 4200, 4328 of 2019, CWPOA Nos. 292, 294, 417, 1032, 2680, 4950, 5004, 5006, 5017, 5101, 5108, 5110, 5112, 5215, 5376, 5527, 5530, 5688, 5792, 5798, 5847, 5857, 5971, 6119, 6135, 6202, 6256, 6278, 6284, 6290, 6336, 6540, 6685, 7085, 7089, 7171, 7250, 7760, 7762, 7837, 7850 of 2019, CWP Nos. 117, 493, 715, 751, 809, 1162, 1164, 2394, 2404, 2417, 2466, 2467, 2471, 2560, 2561, 2562, 2564 to 2567, 2915, 2963, 2987, 3014, 3037, 3143, 3144, 3371, 3424, 3653, 3900, 3904, 3972, 3992, 4036, 4061, 4064, 4136, 4171, 4247, 4272, 4289, 4549, 4662, 4779, 4781, 4786, 4788, 4892, 4897, 4898, 5193, 5194, 5218 5417, 5457, 5480 to 5482, 5487, 5489, 5500, 5546, 5584, 5620, 5660, 5712, 6079 of 2020 CWPOA No. 19, 25, 66, 1328, 1968, 3042, 3214, 3300, 3304, 4347, 5316, 5346, 5549, 5624, 5626, 5642, 5700, 5703, 5707, 5709. 5728, 5729, 5732, 5735, 5747, 5749, 5752, 5757, 5988, 6996 of 2020, CWP Nos. 19, 29, 37, ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 97 60, 63 to 62, 73, 74, 117, 198, 206, 208, 244, 278, 314, 324, 327, 476, 783, 830, 835, 876, 936, 938, 942, 949, 1156, 1159 to 1169, 1175 to 1178, 1182, 1183, 1187, 1189, 1190, 1252, 1254, 1257, 1300, 1304, 1371, 1373, .

1377, 1379, 1400, 1409, 1446, 1521, 1523, 1524, 1591, 1592, 1593, 1595,1595, 1599, 1602 to 1604, 1637, 1666, 1718 to 1720 1726, 1727, 1729, 1752, 1754, 1777, 1787, 1803, 1804, 1957, 2105, 2409, 2482, 2966, 3103, 3171, 3185, 3720, 3751, 4182, 4183, 4249, 4254, 4384, 4542, 4547, 4551, 4863, 5154, 5906, 5923, 5926, 5950, 6259, 6261, 6508, 6511, 6512, 6604, 6746, 7171, 7295, 7372, 7478, 7599, 7950, 8004 of 2021 LPA No.57, 162 of 2021, CWP Nos.118, 266, 576, 764, 802, 803, 805, 806, 810, 814, 835, 926, 1179, 1180, 1194, 2434, 2587, 2593, 2627, 2640, 2642, 2949, 3013, 3486, 3666, 4082, 4253, 4913, 4925, 5044, 5249, 5585, 5780, 5859, 5869, 5870, 5919, 5920, 6013, 6037, 6039, 6240, 6297, 6300, 6449, 6457, 6460, 6609, 6610, 6744, 7655, 7666, 7697 of 2022, LPA No. 17, 32, 33, 137, 161 of 2022.

Vide this judgment the above mentioned cases would be disposed of, as the issue involved in all the cases is the same.

2. The moot question involved in the present cases is, as to whether a daily wager is liable to be conferred work charge status after completion of 8 years of service.

3. Letters Patent Appeal No.165 of 2021 is taken as the lead case.

Hence, the facts arising from this appeal have been taken up for discussion.

4. The case of the respondents/petitioners, in brief, is that the respondents had filed Original Application No.2648 of 2016 before the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, seeking the same relief as granted in CWP(T) No.12217 of 2008, titled as Ashok Kumar vs. State of H.P. , decided on 24.8.2012.

5. The case of the respondents (Surajmani and another), was that they had joined the Department in the year, 1994 and had been regularized in the .

year, 2007 instead of regularizing them after they had completed 8 years service on daily wage basis. The respondents had filed CWP No.5724 of 2013 and the same was disposed of with a direction to the Department to consider the case of the respondents in terms of the decision of this Court dated 28.7.2010, passed in CWP No.2735 of 2010 titled Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others alongwith connected matters. The Department instead of considering the case of the respondents, in terms of the decision given in Rakesh Kumar 's case supra, rejected their representation vide order dated 4.12.2015 on the ground that there was no work charge establishment in the Forest Department. Junior to the respondents had filed Original Application before the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal in the year, 2007 and the same was transferred to this Court after abolition of the Tribunal and this Court ordered in CWP(T) No.12217 of 2008 titled Ashok Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others , vide order dated 24.8.2012 that the Department should consider the case of Ashok Kumar for regularization after completion of 8 years of daily wage service rendered by him as a Driver. Hence, respondents were liable to be regularized when services of their junior, Ashok Kumar were regularized.

6. Appellants-Department in its reply averred that respondent No.1 was initially engaged as a casual labourer in the year, 1985 and had worked intermittently thereafter with the Department. Respondent No.1 had continuously worked in the Department w.e.f. 1994 till 2006 with minimum ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 99 240 days in each calendar year. Services of respondent No.1 were regularized as a Forest Worker vide order dated 10.10.2007. Respondent .

No.2 was initially engaged as a casual labourer in the year, 1988 and had worked intermittently up to the year, 1993. Respondent No.2 had also been working continuously with the Department w.e.f. 1994 onwards till 2006 with minimum 240 days in each calendar year and his services were also regularized vide order dated 10.10.2007. The respondents had filed CWP No.5724 of 2013 in this Court for grant of work charge status after completion of 8 years of service in terms of the decision given in Rakesh Kumar 's case supra. The case of the respondents was duly examined in terms of the decision given by this Court in Rakesh Kumar 's case supra and it was rejected on the ground that the Forest Department was not a work charge establishment.

7. After the abolition of the Tribunal, the Original Application filed by the respondents was transferred to this Court. Learned Single Judge, vide order dated 6.3.2021, allowed the writ petition (CWPOA No.7713 of 2019), filed by the respondents. Hence, appeal has been filed by the State, challenging the order dated 6.3.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge.

8. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, held that for conferring work charge status, a daily wage employee was required to complete 8 years of service with the Department with completing 240 days of service in each calendar year. Learned Single Judge has noticed the information supplied by the Public Information Officer-cum-Divisional Forest ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 100 Officer, Nachan Forest Division, Gohar and as per the same, various persons had been granted work charge status in the Forest Department.

9. A perusal of the list reveals that, although, the employees had been regularized at a later date, but they had been granted work charge status from prior date. For example, Devi Singh, Sweeper, in view of the writ petition filed by him, had been granted regularization w.e.f. 12.9.2006 and work charge status was granted to him w.e.f. 1.1.2001. Thus, various employees, who had filed writ petitions, had been granted work charge status from prior date of their regularization. Noticing the said document, learned Single Judge held that the case of the respondents could not be discriminated on the ground that the Forest Department was not a work charge establishment.

10. The learned Single Judge held as under:-

11. The issue involved in the present cases has been coming up for consideration before this Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time to redress the grievances of the daily wage employees.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P. and others , 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316, while dealing with the Scheme framed by the Government with regard to the daily wage workers being brought on Work Charge Cadre, modified the Scheme as under:-

scale of pay applicable to the corresponding lowest grade in the Government; (2) daily-wage/muster-roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled, who have not completed 10 years of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31-12-1993, shall be ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 102 appointed as work-charged employees with effect from the date they complete the said period of 10 years of service and on such appointment they .

shall be put in the time- scale of pay applicable to the lowest grade in the Government; (3) daily-wage/muster-roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled who have not completed 10 years of service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31-12-1993, shall be paid daily wages at the rates prescribed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time for daily- wage employees falling in Class III and Class IV till they are appointed as work-charged employees in accordance with paragraph 2;

(4) daily-wage/muster-roll workers shall be regularised in a phased manner on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability including physical fitness.

On regularisation they shall be put in the minimum of the time-scale payable to the corresponding lowest grade applicable to the Government and would be entitled to all other benefits available to regular government servants of the corresponding grade."

13. Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General has submitted that so far as Administrative Tribunals are concerned, the aggrieved employee could approach the Tribunal within the prescribed period of limitation. However, in the present case, the employees had approached the Tribunal much beyond the period of limitation vis-à-vis cause of action having arising to them. Even otherwise the claims of the employees were liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches.

14. In support of his arguments, learned Advocate General has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.C.S. Negi vs. .

Union of India, (2018) 16 SCC 721, wherein, it has been held as under:-

(b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period."

13. A reading of the plain language of the above reproduced section makes it clear that the Tribunal cannot admit an application unless the same is made within the time specified in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21(1) or Section 21(2) Or an order is passed in terms of sub-section (3) for entertaining the application after the prescribed period. Since Section 21(1) is couched in negative form, it is the duty of the Tribunal to first consider whether the application is within limitation. An application can be admitted only if the same is found to have been made within the prescribed period or sufficient cause is shown for not doing so within the prescribed period and an order is passed under Section 21(3)."

15. Learned Advocate General has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secy. to Govt. of India v. Shivram .

Mahadu Gaikwad, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 231, wherein, it has been held as under:-

When we turn to the judgment of the Tribunal we find that there is no mention about the question of limitation even though it stared in the face. It would immediately occur to anyone that since the order of discharge was of 7-10-1986 and the application was filed in 1990, it was clearly barred by limitation unless an application for condoning the delay was made under Section 21(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act. No such application was in fact made. Even if it was the contention of the employee that he was suffering from schizophrenia, that could have been projected as a ground for condonation of delay under sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the said statute. Even otherwise without insisting on the formality of an application under Section 21(3) if the Tribunal ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 106 had dealt with the question of limitation in the context of Section 21 we may have refrained from interfering with the order of the Tribunal under Article 136 , but it seems that the .

Tribunal totally overlooked this question which clearly stared in the face. Even the employee made no effort to explain the delay and seek condonation. We find no valid explanation on record for coming to the conclusion that the case for condonation of delay is made out. In the circumstances, there is no doubt that the application was clearly barred by limitation. It is also difficult to understand how the Tribunal could have awarded full back wages even for the period of delay for which the employee was solely responsible. However, since application itself is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, it deserves to be dismissed."

16. Learned Advocate General has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Administrator of Union Territory of Daman and Diu v. R.D. Valand, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 593, wherein, it has been held as under:-

17. Learned Advocate General has further placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Chandra Sekhar Mishra , (2002) 10 SCC 583, wherein, it has been held as under:-

18. Learned Advocate General has further placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in E. Parmasivan v. Union of India , (2003) 12 SCC 270, wherein, it has been held as under:-

the Ministry of Defence OM dated 12-1-1976. The main basis of their case is that in similar cases, OAS Nos. 211 and 498 of 1986, the Principal Bench, CAT by judgment rendered on 13-11-1992 directed the Union of India and the officers concerned to treat the applicants therein as entitled to pay fixation in terms of the aforesaid OM. The applicants also cited the judgments of Benches of CAT at a different place wherein relief had been granted to similarly placed officers of the MES cadre. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 6-2-1996 dismissed the original application on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The Tribunal rejected the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the grievance made by them in the case is continuing and the cause of action for the application is a continuing cause of action, in such a case question of limitation does not stand in the way of the claim made by them. As noted above all the petitioners had retired from the service long before the judgment of the Principal Bench, CAT, dated 13-11-1992. In the judgments of different Benches of CAT copies of which have been placed on record in the case the applicants were officers in service. The anomaly in the scale of pay of the petitioners arose as early as on 12-1-1976 when the Government of India declined to extend the revised scale of pay in terms of the concordance table to members of the cadres of the Store Officers and Administrative Officers. Therefore the petitioners would have raised objection regarding the anomaly in their scale of pay at that point of time. Even thereafter when they retired from the service they could have made the claim for pay fixation in terms of the ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 109 concordance table and for calculation of pension on that basis. They did not take any step in that regard till 1995.

3. In the circumstances of the case the Tribunal, in our .

view, was right in holding that the original application filed by the petitioners was barred by limitation and hence no relief as claimed by them could be granted to them. Thus the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed."

19. Learned Advocate General has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. S.M. Kotrayya , (1996) 6 SCC 267, wherein, it has been held as under:-

20. Learned Advocate General has also submitted that the cases filed by the aggrieved employees were also liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches.

21. In support of his arguments, learned Advocate General has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C. Jacob v.

Director of Geology and Mining, (2008) 10 SCC 115, wherein, it has been held as under:-

on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realise the consequences of such a direction to "consider". If the representation is considered and accepted, the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to "consider". If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain such applications/petitions ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation, and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets obliterated or ignored.

10. ... ... ...

11. When a direction is issued by a court/tribunal to consider or deal with the representation, usually the directee (person ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 112 directed) examines the matter on merits, being under the impression that failure to do so may amount to disobedience. When an order is passed considering and rejecting the claim .

or representation, in compliance with direction of the court or tribunal, such an order does not revive the stale claim, nor amount to some kind of "acknowledgement of a jural relationship" to give rise to a fresh cause of action.

13. Where an employee unauthorisedly absents himself and suddenly appears after 20 years and demands that he should be taken back and approaches the court, the department naturally will not or may not have any record relating to the employee at that distance of time. In such cases, when the employer fails to produce the records of the enquiry and the order of dismissal/removal, court cannot draw an adverse inference against the employer for not producing records, nor direct reinstatement with back wages for 20 years, ignoring the cessation of service or the lucrative alternative employment of the employee. Misplaced sympathy in such matters will encourage indiscipline, lead to unjust enrichment of the employee at fault and result in drain of public exchequer. Many a time there is also no application of mind as to the extent of financial burden, as a result of a routine order for back wages.

14. We are constrained to refer to the several facets of the issue only to emphasise the need for circumspection and care in issuing directions for "consideration". If the representation on the face of it is stale, or does not contain particulars to show that it is regarding a live claim, courts should desist from directing "consideration" of such claims.

15. The present case is a typical example "representation and relief". The petitioner keeps quiet for 18 years after the termination. A stage is reached when no record is available ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 113 regarding his previous service. In the representations which he makes in 2000, he claims that he should be taken back to service. But on rejection of the said representation by order .

9-4-2002, he filed a writ petition claiming service benefits, by referring the said order of rejection as the cause of action. As noticed above, the learned Single Judge examined the claim, as if it was a live claim made in time, finds fault with the respondents for not producing material to show that termination was preceded by due enquiry and declares the termination as illegal. But as the petitioner has already reached the age of superannuation, the learned Single Judge grants the relief of pension with effect from 18-7-1982, by deeming that he was retired from service on that day. We fail to understand how the learned Single Judge could declare a termination in 1982 as illegal in a writ petition filed in 2005. We fail to understand how the learned Single Judge could find fault with the Department of Mines and Geology, for failing to prove that a termination made in 1982, was preceded by an enquiry in a proceedings initiated after 22 years, when the Department in which the petitioner had worked had been wound up as long back as in 1983 itself and the new Department had no records of his service.

22. Learned Advocate General has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar , (2010) 2 SCC 59, wherein, it has been held as under:-

23. Learned Advocate General has further placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. A. Durairaj , (2010) 14 SCC 389, wherein, it has been held as under:-

24. Learned Advocate General has further placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari , (2013) 12 SCC 179, wherein, it has been held as under:-

18. In Union of India v. M.K Sarkar [(2010) 2 SCC 59: (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 1126] this Court after referring to C. Jacob [C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining . (2008) 10 SCC 115: (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 961] has ruled that: (SCC p. 66, para 15).

19. From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claims or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time.

20. In Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Thangappan [(2006) 4 SCC 322: 2006 SCC (L&S), 791] the Court took note of the factual position and laid down that when nearly for two decades the respondent workmen therein had remained silent mere making of representations could not justify a belated approach.

21. In State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan Samantaray [(1977) 3 SCC 396: 1977 SCC (L&S) 424] it has been opined that making of repeated representations is not a satisfactory explanation of delay. The said principle was reiterated in ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 120 State of Orissa v. Arun Kumar Patnaik (1976) 3 SCC 579:

22. In BSNL v. Ghanshyam Dass (2) [(2011) 4 SCC 374:

Judge Bench of this Court reiterated the principle stated in Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana [(1997) 6 SCC 538: 1997 SCC (L&S) 1550] and proceeded to observe that as the respondents therein preferred to sleep over their rights and approached the Tribunal in 1997, they would not get the benefit of the order dated 7-7-1992 [Santosh Kapoor v. Union of India, OA No. 1455 of 1991, order dated 7-7-1992 (CAT)].

23. In State of T.N. v. Seshachalam [(2007) 10 SCC 137:

24. There can be no cavil over the fact that the claim of promotion is based on the concept of equality and equitability, but the said relief has to be claimed within a ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 121 reasonable time. The said principle has been stated in Ghulam Rasool Lone v. State of J&K [(2009) 15 SCC 321:

25. ... ... ...

26. Presently, sitting in a time machine, we may refer to a two-Judge Bench decision in P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N. [(1975) 1 SCC 152: 1975 SCC (L&S) 22], wherein it has been laid down that: (SCC p. 154, para 2.

27. ... ... ...

28. Remaining oblivious to the factum of delay and laches and granting relief is contrary to all settled principles and even would not remotely attract the concept of discretion. We may hasten to add that the same may not be applicable in all circumstances where certain categories of fundamental rights are infringed. But, a stale claim of getting promotional ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 122 benefits definitely should not have been entertained by the Tribunal and accepted by the High Court.

29. True it is, notional promotional benefits have been .

granted but the same is likely to affect the State exchequer regard being had to the fixation of pay and the pension. These aspects have not been taken into consideration. What is urged before by the leaned counsel for the respondents is that they should have been equally treated with Mahadev Singh Tadagi. But equality has to be claimed at the right juncture and not after expiry of two decades. Not for nothing, has it been said that everything may stop but not the time for all are in a way slaves of time. There may not be any provision providing for limitation but a grievance relating to promotion cannot be given a new lease of life any point of time.

30. We will be failing in our duty if we do not state something about the benefit of promotion conferred on the junior employee. We have been apprised by the learned counsel for the State that the promotion extended to him on 15-11- 1983 has been cancelled and, as further put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, the same is under assail before the High Court. The said Mahadev Singh Tadagi was neither a party before the Tribunal nor before the High Court and he is also not a party before this Court. As presently advised, we refrain ourselves from expressing any opinion on the cancellation of promotion and the repercussions of the same. As the matter is sub judice before the High Court, suffice it to say that the High Court shall deal with the same in accordance with the settled principles of law in that regard. We say no more on the said score. However, we irrefragably come to hold that the direction given by the Tribunal which has been concurred ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 123 with by the High Court being absolutely unsustainable in law is bound to be axed and we so do."

25. Learned Advocate General has further placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of J&K v. R.K. Zalpuri , (2015) 15 SCC 602, wherein, it has been held as under:-

21. In this regard reference to a passage from Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. v. K Thangappan [Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd v. K. Thangappan, (2006) 4 SCC 322: 2006 SCC (L&S) 791] would be apposite: (SCC p. 325, para 6).

After so stating the Court after referring to the authority in State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal [State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566] restated the principle articulated in earlier pronouncements, which is to the following effect:

22. In State of Maharashtra v. Digambar [State of Maharashtra v. Digambar (1995) 4 SCC 683] a three-Judge Bench laid down that: (SCC p. 692, para 19).

23. Recently in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Boards v. T.T. Murali Babu [Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Boards v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108: (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 38], it has been ruled thus: (SCC p 117, para 16).

26. Learned Advocate General has further placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava , (2015) 1 SCC 347, wherein, it has been held as under:-

27. Learned Advocate General has further placed reliance upon the decision passed by this Court in LPA No.408 of 2011, titled Anant Ram vs. State of H.P. & Others , dated 29.5.2013, wherein, it has been held as under:-

28. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions made by learned Advocate General and has submitted that so far as Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, is concerned, the same would apply when some order has been passed. Respondents were seeking work charge status in view of the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P. and others , 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316.

Although, the Department was taking up the plea that the Forest Department did not have work charge establishment, but from the documents placed on record by the respondents, it was evident that many employees of the Department had been conferred work charge status after completion of 8 years of service in pursuance to the writ petitions filed by them. Hence, the cases filed by the employees could also be not thrown out on the ground of delay and laches.

29. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in passed in CWP No.2735 of 2010 titled Rakesh ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 130 Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors. , dated 28.7.2010, alongwith connected matters, wherein, it has been held as under:-

30. Admittedly, Special Leave to Appeal filed against the said decision was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court alongwith other connected .

appeals vide order dated 15.1.2015 and the said order reads as under:-

31. Thus, so far as the issues of limitation and delay & laches, are concerned, the same have already been dealt with by this Court in Rakesh Kumar 's case supra. Admittedly , the said decision has attained finality and has been duly implemented by the State and the petitioners in the said case have been granted work charge status after completion of 8 years of service.

Hence, the argument raised by learned Advocate General to the effect that the cases of the employees were liable to be rejected being time barred or on account of delay and laches for imparting them work charge status after completion of 8 years of service, is liable to be rejected. Admittedly, all the employees are seeking work charge status after rendering 8 years service in pursuance to various Schemes framed by the State from time to time. In case, a person approaches the Court at a belated stage, the employee can be denied monetary benefits. In fact, the judgments passed by this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time are more or less judgments in rem and the relief(s) sought by the daily wagers for conferment of work ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 132 charge status after completion of 8 years of service were liable to be given to all the daily wage employees who were similarly situated. In the facts and .

circumstances of the present cases, the judgments relied upon by the learned Advocate General do not advance the case of the State.

32. The next submission made by learned Advocate General is that the judgment passed in Ashwani Kumar 's case did not lay any law and, as such, was not applicable. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v.

Dhanwanti Devi, (1996) 6 SCC 44, wherein, it has been held as under:-

33. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the decision given in Ashwani Kumar 's case supra passed by this Court has been duly implemented by the Department/State and the Special Leave Petition filed against the said decision was dismissed. Hence, ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 133 it cannot be said that the decision given in Ashwani Kumar 's case supra was not liable to be followed.

34. In State of HP and Ors. vs. Sh. Ashwani Kumar , passed in CWP No.3111 of 2016, on 10.5.2018, this Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the State, wherein order passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.412 of 2016, on 23.6.2014, was under

35. Against the said order, the State went in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in Civil Appeal No.5753/2019, arising out of SLP(C) No.10930/2019 vide order dated 22.7.2019, it was held as under:-

36. In Ashwani Kumar 's case supra, it was held specifically that work charge establishment was not a prerequisite for conferment of work charge status. So far as the decision given in Ashwani Kumar 's case supra is concerned, the decision given by this Court was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as the Special Leave Petition filed by the State was dismissed. Admittedly the decision passed in Ashwani Kumar 's case supra has attained finality and has been implemented by the State. Hence, the argument raised by learned Advocate General to the effect that the decision given in Ashwani Kumar 's case supra was not applicable as it did not lay down any law, is without any force and is liable to be rejected.

37. Learned Advocate General has next submitted that the respondents cannot claim negative parity. In case, a relief has been wrongly given to .

similarly situated persons, the same relief cannot be given to the other employees.

38. In support of his argument, learned Advocate General has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar v.

Kameshwar Prasad Singh (2000) 9 SCC 94, wherein, it has been held as under:-

Again in Secy. Jaipur Development Authority v. Doulat Mal Jain [(1997) 1 SCC 35)] this Court considered the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution and reiterated its earlier position regarding the concept of equality holding (SCC pp. 51-52, para 28).

31. In State of Haryana v Ram Kumar Mann [(1997) 3 SCC 321 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 801] this Court observed: (SCC p.

322, para 3).

32. In view of our finding that the judgment of the High Court in the case of Brij Bihari Prasad Singh being contrary to law was not sustainable and liable to be dismissed, the impugned judgment in the case of Kameshwar Prasad Singh case cannot be upheld. The aforesaid respondent is, therefore, not entitled to any relief as prayed for by him on the analogy of the judgments passed and directions given in Brij Bihari Prasad Singh case."

39. Learned Advocate General has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commr. of Municipal Admn. v. M.C. .

Sheela Evanjalin, (2020) 19 SCC 317, wherein, it has been held as under:-

'15. Even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly, that does not confer any right on another person. Article 14 of .

the Constitution does not envisage negative equality, and if the State committed the mistake it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake.

(See Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P. [Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P. (1996) 7 SCC 426] Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain [Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 35] State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann [State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann, (1997) 3 SCC 321: 1997 SCC (L&S) 801] : Faridabad CT Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services [Faridabad CT Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services, (1997) 7 SCC 752]: Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh [Jalandhar Improvement Trust v.

Sampuran Singh, (1999) 3 SCC 494]; State of Punjab v. Rajeev Sarwal [State of Punjab v. Rajeev Sarwal, (1999) 9 SCC 240; 1999 SCC (L&S) 1171]; Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 3 SCC 548: 2003 SCC (L&S) 346]; Union of India v. International Trading Co. [Union of India v. International Trading Co. (2003) 5 SCC 437] and Kastha Niwarak Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. Indore Development Authority [Kastha Niwarak Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. Indore Development Authority, (2006) 2 SCC 604].)' ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 142 Merely because some persons have been granted benefit illegally or by mistake, it does not confer right upon the appellants to claim equality."

40. Learned Advocate General has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Odisha v. Pravat Kumar Dash , (2019) 8 SCC 294, wherein, it has been held as under:-

41. Learned Advocate General has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of W.B. v. Debasish Mukherjee , (2011) 14 SCC 187, wherein, it has been held as under:-

42. Learned Advocate General has further placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.D. University v. Jahan Singh , (2007) 5 SCC 77, wherein, it has been held as under:-

43. Learned Advocate General has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghulam Rasool Lone v. State of J&K , (2009) 15 SCC 321, wherein, it has been held as under:-

44. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the argument raised by learned Advocate General is without any basis, as in all the cases which have been filed before this Court, the judgment passed by this Court, have been duly implemented. In Rakesh Kumar 's case and Ashwani Kumar 's case supra, the decisions given by this Court, have been challenged by the State before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and after dismissal of the appeals, the judgments passed by this Court, were duly implemented. The respondents who were similarly situated were liable to be granted the same relief as the aforesaid judgments have attained finality.

45. We find force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents. In fact, during the course of arguments, it has been pointed out that not only in Rakesh Kumar and Ashwani Kumar's cases supra, but in many other cases also, where this Court followed the decision given in Ashwani Kumar 's case supra and had passed orders for their conversion as work charge status after completion of 8 years service, the same have been duly implemented by the State. It is only in the present cases, the State has taken up a different stand, and at this stage, has tried to agitate the decision given by this Court in Ashwani Kumar 's case supra. Since the judgment passed in Ashwani Kumar 's case supra has been implemented and has attained finality and, admittedly, in various other cases, where the judgments have been passed in pursuance to the order passed by this Court in Ashwani Kumar 's case supra, the same have been implemented, the ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 146 argument raised by learned Advocate General to the effect that the respondents could not claim negative parity is without any basis. In Ashwani .

Kumar 's case, when the matter was taken up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, leave was granted only with regard to the grant of back wages and the said part of the judgment passed by this Court was modified. The findings of the Tribunal as affirmed by this Court with respect to the conferment of work charge status from 1.1.2003 was upheld. However, as the writ petitions have been filed in the year, 2013, it was held that the employees would be entitled only to notional benefits.

46. Learned Advocate General has next argued with vehemence that dismissal of the Special Leave Petition in liminie by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India does not mean that any law had been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

47. In support of his argument, learned Advocate General has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359, wherein, it has been held as under:-

48. Learned Advocate General has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair , (2020) 5 SCC 421, wherein, it has been held as under:-

[ Union of India vs. Raj Pal , 2013 SCC Online SC 1441] having been dismissed on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay in refilling, in our considered view, Raj Pal case ( Union of India vs. Raj Pal , 2013 SCC Online SC 1441] ought not to have been quoted as a precedent of this Court by the High Courts.

48. Article 141 of the Constitution of India provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India i.e. the pronouncement of the law on the point shall operate as a binding precedent on all courts within India. Law declared by the Supreme Court has to be essentially understood as a principle laid down by the court and it is this principle which has the effect of a precedent. A principle as understood from the word itself is a proposition which can only be delivered after examination of the matter on merits. It can never be in a summary manner, much less be rendered in a decision delivered on technical grounds, without entering into the merits at all. A decision, unaccompanied by reasons can never be said to be a law declared by the Supreme Court though it will bind the parties inter se in drawing the curtain on the litigation. In Union of India v All India Services Pensioners Assn. [Union of India v. All India Services Pensioners Assn. (1985) 2 SCC 580: 1988 SCC (L&S) 651], the Supreme Court held that (SCC p. 585, ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 150 para 6) "when reasons were made by the Supreme Court for dismissing the SLP, the decision becomes one which attracts Article 141 of the Constitution which provides that .

the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all the courts within the territory of India"

49. Observing that when a special leave petition is dismissed by a non-speaking order, by such dismissal, the Supreme Court does not lay down any law as envisaged under Article 141 of the Constitution of India in Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Assn. vs. Union of India [Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Assn. vs. Union of India , (1989) 4 SCC 187: 1989 SCC (L&S) 569], this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 206-07. para 22).

49. Learned Advocate General has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dhirendra Sundar Das (2019) 6 SCC 270, wherein, it has been held as under:-

50. Learned Advocate General has further placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar (1992) 1 SCC 489, wherein, it has been held as under:-

51. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that in Ashwani Kumar 's case supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after granting leave, had issued notice only with regard to the question of back wages and had observed that the finding of the Tribunal affirmed by the High Court with respect to conferment of work charge status was not being disturbed. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed a conscious order so far as the relief of grant of work charge status was concerned and had declined to interfere with regard to the finding given by this Court. Hence, the argument raised by learned Advocate General to the effect that the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition in Ashwani Kumar 's case supra by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, did not mean that any law had been laid down in Ashwani Kumar 's case supra, was liable to be rejected.

52. In the present cases, all the daily wage employees are seeking conferment of work charge status on their completion of 8 years service in view of the various Policies framed by the State from time to time. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its decision passed in Mool Raj 's case supra, had modified the Scheme formulated by the State and had observed that the daily wagers who had completed 10 years continuous service with minimum of 240 days in each calendar year, on 31.12.1993, shall be ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 154 appointed as work charge employees. Admittedly, thereafter as per the amended Policy framed by the State from time to time, the requirement of .

completion of 10 years continuous service with minimum 240 days in each calendar year, was reduced to 8 years. This Court in Rakesh Kumar 's case supra was dealing with the employees of Irrigation and Public Health Department who had been regularized in service as per the various Schemes announced by the State from time to time. The grievance raised by the petitioners in the said cases was that they should have been granted work charge status before regularization.

53. The Division Bench of this Court made reference to the order passed by the Government in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of its order dated 28.7.2010, passed in CWP No.2735 of 2010 titled Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors. , and the same read as under:-

3. Order dated 6.5.2000, to the extent relevant, reads as follows:

54. It was also noticed by the Division Bench that new Scheme was introduced on 9.6.2006 and on completion of 8 years of service, the employees were liable to be granted work charge status. The Writ Petitions filed by Rakesh Kumar and others were allowed and the Special Leave Petition filed against the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, was dismissed vide order dated 15.1.2015. Thereafter, in Ashwani Kumar's case supra, this Court upheld the decision passed by the Tribunal, whereby, ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 157 the daily wage employees had been ordered to be conferred work charge status on completion of 8 years of service. The finding of the Tribunal that .

work charge establishment was not a prerequisite for conferment of work charge status was upheld by this Court in Ashwani Kumar 's case and the decision given by this Court in Ashwani Kumar 's case was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, many cases have been decided by this Court, basing reliance on the decision given by this Court in Ashwani Kumar 's case and the judgments passed by this Court, have, admittedly, been implemented by the State.

55. Hence, the State, which is expected to act like a model employer and should have rather granted the same relief, as claimed by the respondents and other petitioners being similarly situated qua the daily wagers/petitioners who had approached this Court and decisions have already been passed in their favour, but has rather now argued that the decision given by this Court in Ashwani Kumar 's case supra did not lay down any law and the observations made therein were per incuriam. This leads to the inference that the State/Department has rather adopted a pick and choose Policy. Once, the judgment in Ashwani Kumar 's case supra has been implemented and has attained finality, then the respondents/petitioners who are similarly situated, are liable to be granted the same relief. So far as the observation made by this Court in Rakesh Kumar 's case supra to the effect that the question of conferment of work charge status did not arise in case the establishment ceases to be a work charge establishment, is concerned, the said observation had been made without there being any issue raised in this ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 158 regard. The decision given in Rakesh Kumar 's case has been admittedly implemented and the petitioners have been granted work charge status on .

their completion of 8 years of service on daily wage basis. Thus , in that case there was no issue as to whether the establishment was a work charge one or not. Thus, in the present cases, the issue involved already stands settled vide judgment given by this Court in Ashwani Kumar 's case supra which has been followed by this Court time and again and, admittedly, many writ petitions have been decided in terms thereof and the said decisions have been duly implemented. Hence, the State cannot be permitted to take a pick and choose Policy. In the case of Rakesh Kumar supra, this Court had categorically held that the question of delay in the present cases is not to be taken for consideration and can be considered for denial of interest on the eligible benefits and not the benefits as such. Hence, the State cannot be permitted to re-agitate the issue which has already been settled by this Court.

Rather, the State should itself grant the relief to the daily wagers by conferring work charge status on them after completion of 8 years of service in terms of their Policies and decisions of this Court.

56. So far as the cases involving Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited are concerned, learned counsel for the Board has placed reliance on the decision of this Court given in CWP No.211 of 2018, titled Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited & others vs. Jagat Singh , wherein, the case of an employee who had been conferred work charge status as a Beldar had claimed that he should be regularized as a Mate on completion of ten years of service. In the said case, it was held that ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 159 a person who had been working as a Beldar on work charge basis and has been regularized as such, could not claim the relief that he was entitled for .

conferment of work charge status on the post of Mate as he had accepted his status as work charge Beldar/regular Beldar thereafter. This shows that in the Electricity Board, work charge status is being conferred on the daily wage employees. Hence, the employees working with the Electricity Board and who have completed eight years of service would also be covered by the decision given in Ashwani Kumar 's case supra.

57. In view of the above, the writ petitions filed by the employees are allowed and the respondents are directed to grant work charge status to the employees from the date they had completed eight years of service on daily wage basis in terms of the decision given by this Court in Ashwani Kumar's case supra. However, benefits consequent to conferment of work charge status in terms of instant judgment shall be restricted to three years for the period prior to filing of petition.

58. The Letters Patent Appeal(s), which have been filed by the respondents/State/employer against the orders passed by learned Single Judge, including LPA No.165 of 2021, as well as writ petitions filed by the respondents/State/employer against the orders passed by the Tribunal, are dismissed with the clarification that the benefits consequent on conferment of work charge status in terms of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge shall be restricted to three years for the period prior to filing of petition.

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

60. Following cases are de-linked and be listed as per Roster:-

61. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that CWP No.2333/2020, CWP No.2405/2020, CWP No.1198/2021, CWP No.748/2019 and CWPOA No.1967/2020 have been rendered infructuous.

62. Accordingly, CWP No.2333/ 2020, CWP No.2405/2020, CWP No.1198/2021, CWP No.748/2019 and CWPOA No.1967/2020 are disposed of, as having been rendered infructuous.

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

( A.A. Sayed ) Chief Justice ( Sabina) Judge January 12, 2023 (KS/PS) ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS