IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.14710 of 2024 Decided on: 7th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Jagdish Chand ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sikandar Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate for respondent No.5. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Even though the respondents have not filed the reply, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for disposal at this state. 2. Petitioner was engaged in the Forest Department on daily wage basis as Forest Worker on 01.07.1994. His services were regularized on 01.09.2007. Petitioner retired on 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - 30.01.2012. 3. Petitioner instituted CWP No.8070 of 2023, seeking benefit of Daulat Ram and Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors2. In essence, petitioner prayed for conferring upon him work charge status on completion of eight years of daily waged service with 240 days in each calendar year. Respondents rejected his case on 19.10.2024 (Annexure P-7). Feeling aggrieved, petitioner instituted this writ petition, seeking following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may very kindly be issued, whereby quashing and setting aside the impugned office order dated 19.10.2024, Annexure P-7, issued by the respondent No.2, being illegal and arbitrary. (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant the work charge status/regularization to petitioner immediately on completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year with effect from due date, i.e., 01.01.2002, with all consequential benefits including pay fixation, pay arrears, increments, seniority and other benefits etc. (iii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant the benefits of two years, i.e., w.e.f. 01.02.2012 to 31.01.2014, by considering the 2 CWPOA No.5554 of 2019, decied on 07.03.2022. - 3 - retirement of the petitioner w.e.f. 31.01.2014 instead of 31.01.2012, i.e., till the age of 60 years, being Class-IV employee. (iv) That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued, directing the respondents to count the services rendered by the petitioner, i.e., w.e.f. 01.01.2002 instead of 01.01.2007 and also w.e.f. 31.01.2014 instead of 31.01.2012, for the purpose of qualifying services for the grant of pension and other retiral benefits, as per the settled position of law.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner are now governed by the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Surajmani & Anr.3 and Jogi Ram Vs. State of H.P.4 He further submitted that petitioner would be satisfied in case respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for grant of reliefs prayed for by him keeping in view aforesaid decisions. This is not opposed by learned counsel for the respondents. It is not disputed that the impugned order dated 19.10.2024 (Annexure P-7) was passed by the respondents prior to the decision rendered in Surajmani3. 5. In view of above submissions, but without going to 3 Civil appeal No. 1595 of 2025, decided on 06.02.2025 4 CWP No.7124 of 2021 decided on 25.02.2025 - 4 - the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents that notwithstanding the impugned order dated 19.10.2024 (Annexure P-7), case of the petitioner for grant of reliefs prayed for by him, be examined by the respondents afresh in light of aforesaid decisions. Appropriate order, in accordance with law, be passed within six weeks from today. The decision so taken be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 7, 2025 R.Atal