Himachal Pradesh High Court
Aji Ram & Another vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 5 May, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.1591 of 2024 with
CWP Nos. 301, 1791, 2137, 2427,
3975, 9221,9745, 10649 of 2023,
CWP Nos. 2453, 3313, 3435, 5919,
6127, 6229, 6333, 6335, 6339 and
9819 of 2024
Date of Decision: 05.05.2025
_______________________________________________________
1. CWP No. 1591 of 2024
Aji Ram & another .......Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
2. CWP No. 301 of 2023
Smt. Sheetla .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
3. CWP No. 1791 of 2023
Krishan Dass .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Gopal Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
H.P. State Forest Corporation & another ... Respondents
Biri Singh & others .......Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Sita Maya .......Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Go Prasad .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Dev Parshad .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
______________________________________________________
Ranjeet Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Shashi Bala .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Chanchal Kumar .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Shanti Devi .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Raju .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Purna Devi .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Raj Mal .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Ranvir Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Chander Parkash .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Neel Kanth and others .......Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Gurdev .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.
Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr.
B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
General, for the respondents-State.
Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate, for the
respondents in CWP No. 2137 of 2023.
____________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Since common questions of law and facts are involved in
all these petitions, same were heard together and are being disposed
of vide this common order.
2. Though, in all these petitions same and similar relief has
been prayed, however relief claimed in CWP No. 1591 of 2024 is
reproduced herein below:-
"That Annexure P-1 may be set-aside/quashed and
respondents may be ordered to grant work charge status
to the petitioners from the dates they completed 8 years
service, with all benefits incidental thereof."
3. Before the issue raised in the instant petitions could be
heard and decided, learned counsel representing the petitioners
stated that her clients would be content and satisfied in case
directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the
cases of the petitioners 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 years. Learned
Additional Advocate General representing the respondents is not
averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the
petitioners.
4. Having perused the averments contained in the petitions
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 petitions
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 cases of the petitioners in light of judgment supra.
5. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petitions
are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and
decide the cases of the petitioners 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 petitioners and
pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the
petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law,
if they still remain aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also
stands disposed of
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
May 05,2025
(shankar)
