IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP Nos.11434 of 2025 and connected matters. Decided on: 17.07.2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No.11434 of 2025 Suban ....Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd & Anr …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No.11442 of 2025 Hirti Ram ....Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd & Anr …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 3. CWP No.11443 of 2025 Anita Devi ....Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd & Anr …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 4. CWP No.11444 of 2025 Pushpa Devi ....Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd & Anr …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 5. CWP No.11446 of 2025 Rajinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd & Anr …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ - 2 - Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. D.S. Kainthla and Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocates. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. D.S. Kainthla and Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocates, accept service of notice on behalf respective respondents in the respective petition. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of almost common relief, which has been reproduced from CWP No. 11434 of 2025:- “i) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to grant the benefit of work charge status to the petitioner from the date of completion of 8 years of daily wage service with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue involved in these writ petitions is covered by 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 3 - State of H.P. & Ors. Vs. Surajmani & Ors.2 Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied, in case, they are permitted to make representations to respondent No.2/competent authority, whereafter, the said respondent/competent authority be directed to decide the representations, to be made by them, in accordance with law and in terms of above decision, within time bound schedule. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to this prayer. 6. Having regard to the above submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, these writ petitions are disposed of by permitting the petitioners to make representations to respondent No.2/competent authority, within a period of two weeks from today for the redressal of their grievances, who shall in turn, consider and decide the same, in accordance with law and keeping in view above decision, within a further period of six weeks. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. 2 SLP (C) No.23016/2023 decided on 06.02.2025 - 4 - Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 17, 2025 Judge R.Atal