Authority: High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla
Order Date: 08 July 2026
Case Overview
- Petitioners: Kushal Chand and three others, engaged as daily‑paid labourers in the Department of Agriculture since 10 June 1982, 17 Mar 1986, 1 Apr 1980 and 6 Jun 1986 respectively.
- Respondents: State of Himachal Pradesh (including Department of Agriculture) represented by Deputy Advocate General Amit Kumar Chaudhary.
- The petitioners challenged the Department’s order dated 05 Dec 2012 which rejected their claim for work‑charge status on the ground that the Agriculture Department is not a work‑charge establishment.
- Earlier proceedings (CWP No.3472 of 2012‑H) directed the petitioners to submit representations and the competent authority to decide, citing precedents Mool Raj Upadhyaya (1994) and Gauri Dutt (2008).
- The Department again rejected the claim, stating past regularisation and work‑charge grants were errors.
- The Court noted that Supreme Court judgments (Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surajmani) hold that work‑charge status must be conferred after eight years of continuous service, irrespective of the existence of a work‑charge establishment.
Final Outcome
- The petition is allowed.
- Respondents are directed to confer work‑charge status on each petitioner, calculated from their respective dates of appointment, within three months of the order.
- If benefits are not released within that period, petitioners are entitled to interest at 6 % per annum on any arrears from the date of the order.
- No order as to costs; any pending applications are also disposed of.
Topics: Employment Law, State Employee Benefits