IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5115 of 2024 Date of Decision: 30.07.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Uday Ram ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Naveen K.Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Naveen K.Bhardwaj, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that despite his having completed 8 years daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year, he is being denied work-charge status on the ground that work-charge establishment has ceased to exist in the Forest Department. 2. Parties are ad idem that afore issue is no more res integra, rather stand duly adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3111 of 2016, titled as State of HP and Ors. Vs. Sh. Ashwani Kumar, wherein it has been categorically held that work-charge establishment is not a pre-requisite for conferment of work-charge status, rather same is required to be granted after completion of eight years daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year. Aforesaid judgment has been further held 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 held that daily wage employee shall be entitled to work charge status on his/her having completed eight years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year, but on notional basis. 3. Having perused the averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgments 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 petitioner 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 petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall 2 afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders 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. July 30, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge 3