1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12660 of 2025 Date of decision: 05.08.2025 Kamla Devi. ...Petitioner. Versus Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya Palampur. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Arun Rana, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Prince Chauhan, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner essentially seeks a direction to the respondent-Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya (in short ‘respondent-University’) to confer work charge status upon her husband on completion of eight years of daily wage service. 2. According to the petitioner, her husband was engaged as Beldar on daily wage basis in the respondent- University in the year 1993. He completed 240 days in each calendar from the year 1994 onwards. Services of the petitioner’s husband were regularized on 06.07.2008 as Beldar. Petitioner’s grievance is that her husband was entitled to work charge status on completion of eight years of -2- daily wage service, but this benefit has been wrongly denied to him by the respondent. 3. Relief qua conferment of work charge status on completion of eight years of service has been claimed on the strength of the decision rendered in Sarwan Kumar Versus Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur1, as affirmed in Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya Versus Sarwan Kumar2, under the lead case State of HP and others Versus Surajmani and Anr.3 During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record copy of the decision rendered in The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Versus Surajmani & Anr.4. Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya Versus Sarwan Kumar5 was one of the matters connected and decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court along with the case of Surajmani5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would be content, if the case of the petitioner is 1 O.A.(D) No.404 of 2018, decided on 20.03.2019 2 CWP No.1396 of 2019, decided on 12.01.2023 3 LPA No.165 of 2021, decided alongwith connected matters on 12.01.2023 4 Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, decided alongwith connected appeals on 06.02.2025 5 Civil Appeal No.1859 of 2025, decided alongwith connected appeals on 06.02.2025 -3- considered by the respondents in light of the aforesaid judgments. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to this prayer. 5. In view of the stand taken by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment, the writ petition is disposed with direction to the respondents/Competent Authority to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law laid down in Surajmani and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within six weeks from today. Copy of order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 5th August, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)