IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19531 of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Tilak Ram and Another …….Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Devi Singh Verma and Mr. Ranbir Singh, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Before reply, if any, could be received from the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners states that their clients would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representations dated 08.07.2025 & 11.10.2025 (Annexure P-2 Colly) of the petitioners in light of judgment dated 06.02.2025, passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and Others, wherein it has been reiterated that daily wage employee shall be entitled to work charge status on his/her having completed eight years continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year, in a time bound manner. Learned Additional 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Advocate General representing the respondents-State is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 2. Having perused the averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners in light of judgment supra. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representations dated 08.07.2025 & 11.10.2025 (Annexure P-2 Colly) of the petitioners, in light of aforesaid judgment, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 12, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)