IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Review Petition (T) No. 1 of 2025 in O.A. No. 355 of 2016 ( now registered as CWPOA No. 2 of 2025) Decided on : 20.05.2025 State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Petitioners. Versus Prem Sagar. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Bonit Prakash, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) The ground for review raised by the review petitioners primarily is that the order dated 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:14730 ) 10.08.2017, passed in O.A. No. 355 of 2016 by the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal came to be passed due to inadvertent omission on the part of the review petitioners to bring the correct factual and legal position before the Tribunal. It is submitted that the case of the respondent Prem Sagar was not covered by the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 7140 of 2012, titled as Gian Singh Vs. State of H.P. and Ors., decided on 24.09.2014, but instead was covered by the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P., 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316. It is submitted that the respondent Prem Sagar was seeking relief of grant of work charge status and on facts he was entitled to the same in terms of the judgment in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case (supra). 2. Learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed the factual aspect of the matter. He, however, has submitted that now the law with respect to grant of work charge status is governed by the judgement passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:14730 ) (C) No. 1595 of 2025, titled as The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Surajmani and Anr., decided on 06.02.2025. 3. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed. The O.A. No. 355 of 2016 is restored and the same be separately registered as CWPOA. CWPOA No. 2 of 2025 4. The order dated 10.08.2017, passed by erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 355 of 2016 is reviewed. The respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner strictly in terms of Surajmani’s case (supra) within six weeks from the date of the passing of this order. In case petitioner is found similarly situated to be beneficiaries of judgment in Surajmani (supra) he shall also be granted the same benefits as have been made available to petitioner in Surajmani (supra). 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:14730 ) 5. The petition is, disposed of, in above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application, if any. (Satyen Vaidya) 20th May, 2025 Judge (sushma)