IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 12074/2025 Decided on: 28.07.2025 Pradeep Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Case projected by the petitioner is that Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 was preferred by him seeking work charge status. This petition was disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide petitioner’s representation, in accordance with law. The respondents thereafter passed an office order on 13.05.2025 mentioning therein that the judgment passed in State of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 CWP Noo. 8494/2023 decided on 04.011.2023 2 H.P. & Ors. Vs. Surajmani & Ors.3 was pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Apex Court, at that time, therefore, petitioner’s case for conferring him work charge status could not be considered by the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid case now stands decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore, the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status upon him in light of law laid down in Surajmani & Ors.3 Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has preferred a representation on 31.11.2023 (Annexure P-4) to the respondents/competent authority. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner would be content, in case, the respondents/competent authority are directed to decide the aforesaid representation within a fixed time schedule, in accordance with law and in terms of above decision. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above decision, within a period of six weeks from today. Decision so arrived 3 Civil Appeal No. 1595/2025 decided a/w connected appeals on 06.02.2025 3 at shall also be communicated to the petitioner(s). Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 28th July, 2025(rohit)