Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 10501 (HP)

VIJAY KUMAR v. HPSFCL AND OTHERS

CWP/3515/2024 · 2025-03-11

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:HHC:5683 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3515 of 2024 Date of Decision: 11.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Vijay Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation Ltd. & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Anshul Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 2 & 3-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Parties are ad-idem that issue/grievance sought to be raised in the instant petition stands already adjudicated by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Surajmani & Anr., wherein it has been held that daily wage employee shall be entitled to work-charge status after his/her having completed eight years service with 240 days in each calendar year. Since the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to confer work-charge status upon him on account of his having completed eight years service with 240 days in each calendar year, coupled with the fact that issue already stands adjudicated by Hon’ble Apex Court in case, detailed hereinabove, this Court finds no impediment in disposing of the petition, while issuing direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Suraj Mani (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months. Ordered accordingly. 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 order. In case the petitioner is found entitled to the relief in terms of judgment passed in Suraj Mani (supra), he shall be granted similar benefits, but on notional basis from due date. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 11, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge