IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.7617 of 2020 Decided on: 20.03.2025 Jindu Ram ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though, in the petition twofold prayer for grant of work charge status and regularization is made, but he is under instructions not to press prayer qua regularization. He further submits that as far as issue relating to the grant of work charge status to the petitioner is concerned, the same has finally been decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh & others vs. Surajmani & another vide judgment dated 6th February, 2025. According to him, the petitioner shall be satisfied in case the respondents are directed 2 to take a decision in the case of the petitioner, strictly in terms of judgment in Surajmani’s case (supra) in a time bound manner. 2. Prayer being innocuous, is not opposed. 3. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of the judgment in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh & others vs. Surajmani & another, within a period of eight weeks from today by passing a detailed and reasoned order. In case the petitioner is found similarly situated to the respondents in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, he shall be granted all similar benefits. 4. Petition is accordingly disposed of along with pending application(s), if any. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge March 20, 2025 (vt)