IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8651of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Smt. Sarvi Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. A. K. Gupta and Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocates. 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): Petitioner herein is aggrieved of order dated 6.11.2024 (Annexure P-1), issued under the signature of Deputy Conservator of Forests, Forest Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, whereby prayer made by the petitioner for conferment of work charge status of her late husband after having rendered eight years service with minimum of 240 days in each calendar year, came to be rejected. 2. Learned counsel representing the petitioner while referring to the judgment dated 06.02.2025 passed by Hon'ble Apex 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Court in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and others, states that Hon’ble Apex Court in afore judgment has categorically held that a daily wage employee shall be entitled to work charge status on his/her completed eight years continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year and petitioner would be content and satisfied in case his case is considered and decided in light of aforesaid judgment. Learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents- State 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 allowed and order dated 6.11.2024 is quashed and set aside and a direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably 3 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. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 26, 2025 manjit