__________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 955 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

__________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 16 May, 2025

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                               CWP No.5443 of 2024
                                       Date of Decision: 16.05.2025
__________________________________________________________
Pitamber Lal                                        .......Petitioner
                                Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others                 ....Respondents
__________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner:     Ms. Tanu 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 and
                        Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General,
                        for State.
__________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Before reply, if any, could be received on behalf of the

respondents, 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 pending representation

(Annexure P-4), filed by 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 completed eight years

continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar years,

in a time bound manner.

2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General fairly

states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

behalf of the petitioner and pending representation, if any, filed by the

petitioner, shall be decided, in accordance with law.

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 pending

representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner in light of aforesaid

judgment.

4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is

disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide

the pending representation (Annexure P-4) 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.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 16, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)