Sh. Karam Singh vs State Of H.P. And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 8364 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Sh. Karam Singh vs State Of H.P. And Others on 1 September, 2025

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                           CWP No.13919 of 2025
                                      Date of Decision: 01.09.2025
    __________________________________________________________




                                                                                   .
    Sh. Karam Singh                                .......Petitioner





                               Versus
    State of H.P. and Others                      ....Respondents
    __________________________________________________________
    Coram:





    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting? 1
    For the Petitioner:     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 Advocates General, with Mr.
                         Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for
                         State.

    __________________________________________________________

    Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Before notices, if any, could be issued in the instant

proceedings, 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 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.

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

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.

(Sandeep Sharma),

Judge September 01, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)