IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6269 of 2021 Date of Decision: 02.07.2025 __________________________________________________________ Sh. Harish Kumar …….Petitioner Versus H.P. State Agriculture & Marketing Board and Another ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Virender Singh Rathore, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “i. That the respondents may be ordered to grant work charge status/regularize services of the petitioner from the date he completed 8 years service with all the benefits incidental thereof.” 2. Though by way of filing reply, claim as put forth in the petition, has been refuted by the respondents, but before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel representing the 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 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 to work charge status on his/her having completed eight years continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year, in a time bound manner. Learned counsel 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 order shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 02, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)