IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP Nos.11390 of 2025 Decided on: 16th July, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Hari Krishan. ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Amrick Singh Advocate . For the respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General, for repsndents No.1 and 3. Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Amrick Singh and Mr. Ragil Singh, learned Counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - “i. That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant work charge status to the petitioner as Lineman from the day, the petitioner has completed 8 years of continuous service on daily wage basis i.e. w.e.f. 01- 03-2002 in view of the law lay down by this Hon ble Court in LPA No. 165 of 2021, titled as State of HP and others Versus Surajmani and another, decided on 12 01-2023 along with connected matter with all consequential benefits. (ii) That quash and set-aside the impugned order (communication) dated 04.07.2024 Annexure P-9 being contrary and offends the principles of natural justice. (iii) That the respondents may be directed to grant all benefits incidental thereof such as back wages, seniority and pay fixation and pension by counting his work charge period with interest.” From the case file, it appears that respondent No.2 had rejected the case of the petitioner vide office order dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure P-9) only on the ground that respondent No.2 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is not a work charge establishment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the writ petition and the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner is now covered by the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in The State of Himachal - 3 - Pradesh & Ors. Versus Surajmani & Anr.2. The respondent-Department was also the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in some of the connected matters. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case the respondents are directed to examine his case in light of the aforesaid judgment within a fixed time schedule. Learned counsel for the respondents have not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, impugned office order dated 25.07.2024 (Annexure P-9) is quashed and set aside. Respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law laid down in Surajmani2 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within six weeks from today. Copy of the order so passed, be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 16, 2025 Judge R.Atal 2 Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, decided alongwith connected civil appeals on 06.02.2025