IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16877 of 2025 Decided on: 30th October, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mahesh Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Aman Parth Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Aman Parth Sharma, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 and respondent No.3, respectively. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. Petitioner is a retired employee of respondent No.3-Municipal Council Joginder Nagar, District Mandi and has prayed for direction to the respondents to grant him 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 work charge status from the date he completed eight years of service with all incidental benefits. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the writ petition and the relief prayed for by the petitioner are now covered by the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Versus Surajmani & Anr.2. Learned counsel also submits that the representation dated 31.08.2025 (Annexure P-5) preferred by the petitioner for claiming the above relief is pending consideration with respondent No.3/competent authority. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case respondent No.3/competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representation within a fixed time schedule. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents are not averse to this prayer. 5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.3/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 31.08.2025 (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of 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 October 30, 2025 Judge Mukesh