IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3397 of 2021 Date of Decision: 08.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Man Singh & another …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): CMP No. 15323 of 2025 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The application stands disposed of. CWP No.3397 of 2021 By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main relief:- “ That the respondents may kindly be directed to give the regularization to the petitioners alongwith all consequential benefits/pensionary benefits as Beldar with effect from 01.01.2001 with interest @ 9% per annum, when they are completed 8 years of service with 240 days in each calendar year as per the policy of the State Government.” 2. Before the 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 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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 completion of 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. 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 petitioners 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 case of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, 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 order. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file 3 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 08,2025 (shankar)