IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8423 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Brij Lal & another …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Naresh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs:- “(i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to grant the work charge status/regularization to the petitioners after 8 years of daily waged services with all consequential benefits; (ii) That the respondents may further be directed to grant all consequential benefits in favour of the petitioners.” 2. Before the issue raised in the instant petition could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel representing the petitioners states that his clients would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the representation dated 26.05.2024 (Annexure P-3 colly) 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 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 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 petitioners 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 representation dated 26.05.2024 (Annexure P-3 colly) 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 appropriate 3 order. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 22, 2025 (shankar)