IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7182 of 2024 Date of decision: 12.03.2025 Jovan Lal. ...Petitioner. Versus Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya . ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Arun Rana, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Prince Chauhan, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner essentially seeks a direction to the respondent-Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya (in short ‘respondent-University’) to confer work charge status upon him on completion of eight years of daily wage service. 2. According to the petitioner, he was engaged as Beldar on daily wage basis in the respondent-University in the year 1994. He completed 240 days in each calendar from the year 1995 onwards. Services of the petitioner were regu- larized on 6.07.2008 as Beldar. Petitioner’s grievance is that he was entitled to work charge status on completion of eight 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- years of daily wage service, but this benefit has been wrongly denied to him by the respondent. 3. Relief qua conferment of work charge status on completion of eight years of service has been claimed on the strength of the decision rendered in Sarwan Kumar Versus Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur1, as affirmed in Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Hi- machal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya Versus Sarwan Kumar2, under the lead case State of HP and others Ver- sus Surajmani and Anr.3 4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record copy of the decision rendered in The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Versus Suraj- mani & Anr.4. Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya Versus Sarwan Kumar5 was one of the matters connected and decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court along with the case of Surajmani5. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that these writ petitions 1 O.A.(D) No.404 of 2018, decided on 20.03.2019 2 CWP No.1396 of 2019, decided on 12.01.2023 3 LPA No.165 of 2021, decided alongwith connected matters on 12.01.2023 4 Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, decided alongwith connected appeals on 06.02.2025 5 Civil Appeal No.1859 of 2025, decided alongwith connected appeals on 06.02.2025 -3- be disposed of in terms of para 10 of the aforesaid decision, which reads as under:- “10. For the cumulative reasons aforestated, we are of the considered view that the dicta laid down by this Court vide order dated 22.07.2019 in Ashwani Kumar's (Supra) case which is based on the judgment of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (Supra) holds the field and would also be applicable to the Respondents herein who had approached the Tribunal or the High Court seeking similar relief. As such, the Respondents shall be entitled for grant of 'work-charged' status from the date of completion of 8 years of service. However, we hold that the relief in the present appeals will be limited to notional benefits as explained in paragraph 3 and 4 of Ashwani Kumar's (Supra) case in Civil Appeal No(s).5753 of 2019 and the present appeals stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.” 5. In view of the fair stand taken by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment, instant writ petition is disposed of in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Surajmani and Sarwan Kumar. Respondent is directed to implement the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court therein in case of the petitioner by taking all consequential actions within six weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 12th March, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)