IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9617 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.06.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Sohan Lal …….Petitioner Versus HPSEBL 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. Pawan Chauhan, Advocate, vice Ms. Vandana Misra, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “i. That Annexure P-1 may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be ordered to grant work charge status to the petitioner, on completion of 8 years’ daily wage service, with all benefits incidental thereof as per the order rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.” 2. Though Mr. Pawan Chauhan, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondents, but before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No. 10719-10720 of 2025 titled Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. Vs. Nanak Chand & Ors., states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Hon’ble Apex Court in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. (supra) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 3. Mr. Pawan Chauhan, learned counsel representing the respondents, has no objection to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Hon’ble Apex Court in aforesaid judgment, if it is so, there appears to be no impediment in issuing directions to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of the instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereupon. All pending applications stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 17, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)