IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7925 of 2025 Date of Decision: 15.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Surinder Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, 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:- “i) That the directions be issued to the respondent to confer the work charge status upon the petitioner immediately after the completion of eight years continuous service as per the judgment passed in State of Himachal Pradesh versus Surajmani; ii) That the respondent may kindly be directed to release the arrears to conferment of the work charge status upon the petitioner immediately after the completion of the ten years continuous service alongwith 9% interest from the date the same become due till its realization and justice be done.” 2. Before the issue raised in the instant petition could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel representing the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner states that his client would be content and satisfied in case 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 years, in a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents 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 say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant 3 order shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate order. 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 15,2025 (shankar)