IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7079 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Chameli Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. A.K.Gupta, 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. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “That the respondents may be ordered to grant work charge status to late husband of the petitioner, from the date he completed 10 years service w.e.f. 1.1.1994 with all consequential benefits thereto and he may be held to be work charge employee w.e.f. 1.1.1994 and all monetary claims of her late husband may be ordered to be paid to the petitioner.” 2. Before the issue raised in the instant petition could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that her client would be content and satisfied in case 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of 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, wherein it has been reiterated that daily wage employee shall be entitled to work charge status on completion of eight years continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year, in a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents-State is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Having perused the averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment supra. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Needless to 3 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. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 01, 2025 manjit