IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6338/2025 Decided on: 21.05.2025 Bishan Dev …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Naresh Verma Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the respondents may be directed to grant him work charge status after 8 years of daily waged services in view of the law lay down in CWP No. 2735/2010 titled as Rakesh Kumar Vs. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 State of H.P. & Others alongwith all consequential benefits in the interest of justice. (ii) That the respondents may further be directed to consider the the representation P-2 made by the petitioner and grant GPF alongwith all consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner be considered for work charge status after rendering 8 years of daily wages services w.e.f. 01.01.2003 with all consequential benefits and for that purpose has made a representation on 02.04.2024 (Annexure P-2). His grievance is that the said representation till date has not been decided by respondent No.2/competent authority, in accordance with law. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, in case, respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner, in a time bound manner. Prayer is not opposed by learned Additional Advocate General. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, the instant writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed 3 be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 21st May 2025(rohit)