_____________________________________________________________________ vs Hpsfc And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 215 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

_____________________________________________________________________ vs Hpsfc And Ors on 1 May, 2025

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                               CWP No.7085 of 2025
                                          Date of Decision: 1.5.2025
_____________________________________________________________________
Roop Singh
                                                           .........Petitioner
                                            Versus
HPSFC and Ors.
                                                          .......Respondents

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner:       Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. A.K.
                          Gupta, Advocate.
s

For the respondents:      Mr. Vishwas Kaushal, Advocate vice Mr.
                          Raman Ravi Verma, Advocate.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for

following main relief:-

"That the respondents may be ordered to grant work charge status to the petitioner on completion of 8 years service, with all benefits incidental thereof."

2. Before the issue raised in the instant petition could be

heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel representing the

petitioner states that her 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 12.01.2023, passed by

Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.165 of 2021, 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 completion of eight years continuous service with a

minimum of 240 days in each calendar year, in a time bound manner.

Learned counsel representing the respondents is not averse to

aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

3. 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.

4. 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

detailed speaking order 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.

May 1, 2025                                        (Sandeep Sharma),
      (manjit)                                           Judge