IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10743 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.07.2025 __________________________________________________________ Bhagat Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajeev Kumar and Mr. Bhushan Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Before notices, if any, could be issued in the instant proceedings, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-3), filed by 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 completed eight years continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar years, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 behalf of the petitioner and pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner, shall be decided, in accordance with law. 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 pending representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner 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 petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 07, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)