IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.751 of 2021 Date of Decision: 17.07.2025 __________________________________________________________ Gulab Singh and Others …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): CMP No.15646 of 2025 For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and with the consent of parties, case at hand is taken up for hearing today itself. Application stands disposed of. CWP No.751 of 2021 2. By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main relief:- “i. That the respondents may be ordered to grant the work charge status to the petitioners from the date they completed 8 years i.e. w.e.f. 2004, 2005 and 2006 respectively with all benefits incidental thereof as per the judgment passed in Ashwani Kumar’s case bearing CWP No.3111 of 2016 dated 10-05-2018.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 3. Before 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 the case 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 his/her having completed eight years continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar years, in a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 4. 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. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, -3- 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 orders thereupon. 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 July 17, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)