IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10269 of 2024 Date of Decision: 6.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sh. Raj Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the State. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Adocate, for respondent No.3. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Since it is quite apparent from the reply filed by the respondents that petitioner herein was allowed work charge status on completion of eight years of daily wage service upto 31.12.2002 w.e.f. 1.1.2003 to 7.8.2006 on the analogy of Surajmani’s case, subject to outcome of SLP(C) No. 23016 of 2023, titled Surajmani v. State of Himachal Pradesh and now there is no dispute that SLP filed in Surajmani’s case, has been disposed of with clear cut direction that person after completion of eight years of daily wage service is entitled to work charge status, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made in the instant petition as far as conferment of work - 2 - charge status from the date of his having completed eight years of daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year, is concerned. Since work charge status already stands conferred in favour of the petitioner, this court, on account of mandate contained in Surajmani’s case as detailed herein above, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with direction to the respondents to take into consideration service rendered by the petitioner while computing the qualifying service for the purpose of pension. Ordered accordingly. Since petitioner has been fighting for his rightful claim for years together, this Court hopes and trusts that needful in terms of instant judgment shall be done expeditiously, preferably, within two months. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes on behalf of the petitioner to submit relevant documents within one month, enabling the respondents to do the needful within the stipulated time. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. May 6, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge