IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5741 of 2024 Date of Decision: 01.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Chiranji Lal & Ors. …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Vinay Mehta & Mr. Devi Singh Verma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main relief:- “a) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing and setting aside the office order dated 31.07.2019 (Annexure P-3) being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and bad in the eyes of law; b) That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents directing them to grant work charge status/regularisation to the petitioners on completion of 8 years of their services as daily wager in terms of the Govt. policy of the year 2000 and also in terms of judgment dated 12.01.2023, passed by the Hon’ble High Court in LPA No.165 of 2021; titled as State of H.P. & Ors. Vs. Surajmani & Anr. With all consequential benefits.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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 his/her having completed 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 petitioners. 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 petitioners in light of judgment supra. 3 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 petitioners 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 petitioners and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 01, 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)