IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3847 of 2024 Date of Decision: 10.04.2025 __________________________________________________________ Rajender Kumar and Another …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Vijay Kumar, 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 instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs:- “(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued, and the impugned order dated 15.12.2015, Annexure P-1, issued by the respondent No.4, may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, whereby directing the respondents to grant the work charge status/regularization to petitioners immediately on completion of 8 years of daily wage service w.e.f. 01.01.2002 with 240 days in each calendar year, with all consequential benefits including pay fixation, pay arrears, increments, seniority and other benefits etc.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that petitioners would be content and satisfied in case their case is considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Surajmani & Anr. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and case of the petitioners shall be considered and decided in light of afore judgment expeditiously. 3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid 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 petitioners in light of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Surajmani case (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. 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 petitioners and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 10, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)