Himachal Pradesh High Court
_______________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 1 May, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.7079 of 2025
Date of Decision: 01.05.2025
_______________________________________________________
Chameli Devi .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ... Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr.
A.K.Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.
Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr.
B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals
and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
General.
__________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(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 late husband of the petitioner, from the
date he completed 10 years service w.e.f. 1.1.1994 with
all consequential benefits thereto and he may be held to
be work charge employee w.e.f. 1.1.1994 and all
monetary claims of her late husband may be ordered to
be paid to the petitioner."
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
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
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 completion of 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.
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
she still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
May 01, 2025
manjit
