IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1591 of 2024 with CWP Nos. 301, 1791, 2137, 2427, 3975, 9221,9745, 10649 of 2023, CWP Nos. 2453, 3313, 3435, 5919, 6127, 6229, 6333, 6335, 6339 and 9819 of 2024 Date of Decision: 05.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 1591 of 2024 Aji Ram & another …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 2. CWP No. 301 of 2023 Smt. Sheetla …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 3. CWP No. 1791 of 2023 Krishan Dass …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 4. CWP No. 2137 of 2023 Gopal Singh …….Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Corporation & another … Respondents 5. CWP No. 2427 of 2023 Biri Singh & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 6. CWP No. 3975 of 2023 Sita Maya …….Petitioners 2 Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 7. CWP No. 9221 of 2023 Go Prasad …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 8. CWP No. 9745 of 2023 Dev Parshad …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ 9. CWP No. 10649 of 2023 Ranjeet Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 10. CWP No. 2453 of 2024 Shashi Bala …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 11. CWP No. 3313 of 2024 Chanchal Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 12. CWP No. 3435 of 2024 Shanti Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 13. CWP No. 5919 of 2024 Raju …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 3 14. CWP No. 6127 of 2024 Purna Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 15. CWP No. 6329 of 2024 Raj Mal …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 16. CWP No. 6333 of 2024 Ranvir Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 17. CWP No. 6335 of 2024 Chander Parkash …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 18. CWP No. 6339 of 2024 Neel Kanth and others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 19. CWP No. 9819 of 2024 Gurdev …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 4 and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate, for the respondents in CWP No. 2137 of 2023. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, same were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order. 2. Though, in all these petitions same and similar relief has been prayed, however relief claimed in CWP No. 1591 of 2024 is reproduced herein below:- “That Annexure P-1 may be set-aside/quashed and respondents may be ordered to grant work charge status to the petitioners from the dates they completed 8 years service, with all benefits incidental thereof.” 3. Before the issue raised in the instant petitions could be heard and decided, learned counsel representing the petitioners stated that her clients would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the cases of the petitioners 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 completion of eight years continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar years. Learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents is not 5 averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 4. Having perused the averments contained in the petitions 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 petitions 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 cases of the petitioners in light of judgment supra. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the cases of the petitioners 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 petitioners and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 05,2025 (shankar)