IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 16918 of 2025 Decided on: 31.10.2025 Umapatti …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Pankaj Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate 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 in both these petitions. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- i) That a writ in the nature of “Mandamus” and any other writ, order or direction may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to extend the benefit of regularization to the Petitioner w.e.f.17.03.2011, i.e. the day she completed 8 years of service on daily wages basis, along with all consequential benefits in the light of the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 law laid down vide judgment by this Hon’ble Court in LPA 165 of 2021 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Surajmani and others. ii) That a writ in the nature of “Mandamus” and any other writ, order or direction may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant the pensionary benefits after regularizing the services of the petitioner on completion of eight years daily wage services in the light of the law laid down vide judgment by this Hon’ble Court in LPA 165 of 2021 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Surajmani and others. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inadvertently in the relief clause, the petitioner has prayed for regularization of her services. However, the relief intended to be prayed was only conferment of work charge status in light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Versus Surajmani & Anr.2. Learned counsel further submits that present writ petition is only for considering the case of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status in light of Surajmani.2 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case the respondents are directed to examine her case in light of the aforesaid judgment within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with law laid down in 2 Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, decided alongwith connected civil appeals on 06.02.2025 3 Surajmani2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 31st October, 2025(yogesh)