IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.10370 of 2024 Decided on 20th July 2026 Mehar Chand and another …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Ms. Seema K. Guleria, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i. That the respondents may very kindly be directed to regularize the services of petitioner No.1 w.e.f. 01.01.2000 and petitioner No.2 w.e.f. 01.01.2001 by applying the ration of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Rakesh Kumar’s case as well as the judgment passed in CWPOA No.6487 of 2020 with all consequential benefits of increments, pay, seniority, arrears etc. alongwith an interest @12% per annum in the interest of law and justice. ii. That the rejection order whereby the case of petitioner was rejected by respondents (copy of the which has not been supplied to the petitioners) may kindly be quashed and set aside by issuing a writ of certiorari. 2 iii. That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant all consequential benefits treating the petitioners as regular Beldars w.e.f. 01.01.2000 and 01.01.2001. 2. Today, learned Additional Advocate General has handed over instructions received from Executive Engineer, Jal Shakti Division No. 1, Kasumpti. Along with these instructions, an office order passed by the Executive Engineer on the issue of the petitioner seeking work-charge status on completion of eight years’ service has been produced. 3. A perusal thereof demonstrates that now needful has been done in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Suraj Mani and another, decided on 6.12.2025. 4. In light of this development, this Court is of the considered view that now nothing survives in this petition. 5. At this stage, Ms. Seema Guleria, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petition be closed, but with the observation that if there is any surviving grievance of the petitioners, they may approach the Court afresh. 5. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with 3 liberty as prayed for. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 20, 2026 (Vinod)