_____________________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 1115 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

_____________________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 3 June, 2025

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                               CWP No.9239 of 2025
                                       Date of Decision: 03.06.2025
_____________________________________________________________________
Hari Chand                                               .........Petitioner
                                       Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.                        .......Respondents

Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner:       Mr. Arun Rana, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan
                     Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma,
                     Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi
                     Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for
                     respondents-State.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Before the issue raised in the instant petition could

be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel

representing the petitioner states that his client would be content

and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to

consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of

judgment dated 06.02.2025, passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in

Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, titled State of Himachal

Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and others, wherein it has

been reiterated that daily wage employee shall be entitled to work

charge status on his/her having completed eight years

continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar

year, in a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate

General representing the respondents-State is not averse to

aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Having perused the averments contained in the

petition as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought

to be relied upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the

instant petition already stands adjudicated by Division Bench of

this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court and as such, no

prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the

respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the

petitioner in light of judgment supra.

3. Consequently, in view of the above, the present

petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to

consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid

judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks.

Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in

terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard

to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereupon. Liberty

is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in

appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending

application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

June 03, 2025                                (Sandeep Sharma),
     (sunil)                                      Judge