IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 14319 of 2025 Decided on 29th June, 2026 Sh. Ramesh Chand …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: M/s Chandranarayana Singh and Anshul Gandhi, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Susheel Gautam, Advocate, for respondents No.3 & 4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia,prayed for the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, by directing the respondents to pay the equal pay and perks to petitioner from the initial date of his appointment or after completion of eight years of daily waage service as paid to regular employees of the government department in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India with all consequential benefits; ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to grant the Work Charge Status/Regularization to the Petitioner after completion of eight years of regular daily wage service i.e. w.e.f. 01.01.2005 with all consequential benefits; iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to re-fix the pay of the Petitioner and pay the entire consequential benefits in favour of the Petitioner with in time bound manner along with 12% Interest; iv) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, by directing the respondents, to regularize the service of Petitioners after completion of eight years of regular daily wage service by observing the Petitioner permanently in the department as done in the case of other similar situated persons with all consequential benefits as done in the past.” 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue being raised by the petitioner is no more res integra, as a person similarly situated as a petitioner had approached this Court by way of CWPOA No.3562 of 2019, titled Sant Ram and another Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, which was allowed, Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in which case was dismissed and the judgments passed by this Court in which matter were upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 2 Learned counsel drew the attention of the Court to the reply filed by the respondents and by referring to Para-22 of the reply, he submitted that it stands admitted by the respondents that the case of the petitioner is similar to that of Sant Ram, but as per the State it had assailed the said order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Learned Counsel submitted that now as the matter stands decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and as the respondents themselves admit that the case of the petitioner was similar to Sant Ram. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand submits that the case of the petitioner is not similar to Sant Ram,but is fundamentally different and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim the same relief as was granted to Sant Ram. 4. Having heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and also learned Additional Advocate General and having perused the pleadings of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as stands granted to Sant Ram in light of the admission made by the respondents-State in its reply that the case of the petitioner 3 was similar to Sant Ram. 5. Para-22 of the reply of the State is quoted herein below:- “22. That the petitioner's claim of being similarly situated to Sh. Sant Ram is admitted only to the limited extent that both are project staff under the Himachal Pradesh Natural Resource Management Society (HPNRMS) and are working within the Externally Aided Projects (EAPs). Further, with respect to relief granted by this Hon'ble Court vide orders dated 06.09.2022 passed in CWPOA No. 3562 of 2019 titled as Sant Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., it is submitted that the State of H.P. had filed the review petition in Civil Appeal No. 1858 of 2025 arising out of SLP(C) No. 10207/2024 titled as State of H.P. & Ors. Vs Sant Ram & Anr. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide Diary No. 29922/2025 and the same has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 03.02.2026, however the question of law is Court has issued notice to the other party in SLP filed vide Diary No. 16927/2025 in case titled as State of H.P. & ors. V/s Gopal Singh.” 6. Thus, in the light of the said reply, which is supported on the affidavit of none other than the Executive Director, Integrated Development Project-cum-Executive Officer, H.P. Natural resource Management Society, Solan, Hi8machal Pradesh, the contention now raised by the State that the case of the petitioner is different from Sant Ram cannot be accepted. 7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and 4 respondents are directed to confer the benefits upon the petitioner by treating the directions passed in Sant Ram’s case, as having been passed in the case of this petitioner also. The daily wage services rendered by the petitioner shall be regularized from due date notionally and actual benefits shall accrue three years preceding the date of filing of the writ petition by the petitioner. Needful be done within three months from today. 8. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 29, 2026 (Guleria) 5