IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10587 of 2025 Date of Decision: 3.7.2025 _______________________________________________________ Bhupinder Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sharma and Mr. Bhushan Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “Issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner’s services as regularized w.e.f. 01-01-2001 (upon completion of 8 years of daily wage service) instead of 30-12-2006, and grant all consequential benefits including pay fixation, increments and other service benefits for the intervening period.” 2. Before reply, if any, could be called for from the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner 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 his/her having completed eight years continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year, in a time bound manner. 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 disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-3) in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of four 3 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. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 3, 2025 manjit