IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4649 of 2024 Date of Decision: 16.05.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Prem 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: Mr. Gaurav Sharma, 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): By way of present petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “(a) That writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to condone the artificial/frictional breaks given to the petitioner. (b) The writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant work charge status/regularization to the petitioner on completion of 8 years of regular service w.e.f. 1/1/2002 in terms of judgment dated 10/5/2023 passed in CWP No.1629 of 2023 titled as Karnail Singh Vs. State of H.P.” 2. Though by way of filing reply to the petition, claim as put forth by the petitioner, has been seriously refuted, but before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, learned counsel representing the petitioner while referring to 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, states that issue, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings, already stands adjudicated and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Surajmani case (supra), wherein workmen after his/her having rendered eight years of daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year has been held entitled to regularization, in a time bound manner. 3. In the case at hand, petitioner though claims to have been engaged on daily wage basis in the year 1994, but his services have been regularized on 24.06.2019, whereas as per policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time, he ought to have been regularized after completion of eight years, from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 01.04.1994. Though services of similarly situate persons, who are otherwise junior to the petitioner, stand regularized after their having completed eight years of service from the date of their initial appointment, but in the case of the petitioner, different yardstick has been applied and as such, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 4. Besides above, reply filed by respondents reveals that though petitioner was engaged on 01.04.1994, but he failed to complete 240 days in each year, enabling department to consider his case for regularization after his having completed eight years service with 240 days in each calendar year. Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2949 of 2016, titled as State of H.P. and Others Vs. Manoj Singh, decided on 18.12.2017 has held that though petitioner in that case has been working uninterruptedly 3 w.e.f. 1994 with 240 days in each calendar year, but purposely he was given frictional breaks, so that subsequently he could not claim regularization. Division Bench in afore case directed respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner after his having competed eight years of service from the date of his initial appointment. 5. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General after having perused judgment passed in Manoj Singh and Surajmani cases (supra) fairly states that case of the petitioner deserves to be considered in light of aforesaid judgments. 6. Consequently, in view of fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh, in light of aforesaid judgments 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 taking note of judgments passed in aforesaid cases. 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)