IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19515 of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.12.2025 __________________________________________________________ Sh. Shankar Lal …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate. 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): Notice. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents/State. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. Petitioner herein, who at present is working as daily wage Beldar in Agriculture Department, is aggrieved of order dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) whereby representation, having been filed by him in terms of orders passed by erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal in T.A. No.2018 of 2015, claiming therein work-charge status on completion of eight years of continuous service on daily wage basis, came to be 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 rejected on the ground that case of the petitioner is not covered under Surajmani’s case. 4. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, having carefully perused order laid challenge in the instant proceedings, fairly states that afore order is not sustainable in the eye of law in terms 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 categorically held 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. 5. In view of aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of respondents and as such, same can be disposed of on the basis of material, already available on record. 6. Since it is not in dispute that petitioner herein was engaged as daily wage worker on 02.10.1991 in the Department of Agriculture and since then, he has been continuously working in the department, but work-charge status has not been conferred upon him. Though respondents have already regularised the services of the petitioner in terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in terms of Mool Raj Upadhaya’s case, but he is also entitled to benefit of work-charge status, in terms of latest judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 3 Surajmani’s case, wherein it has been categorically held that daily wage employee shall be entitled to work-charge status, after his/her having completed eight years of daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year on notional basis, however, in the instant case, respondents while passing office order dated 28.07.2025 have gone astray and have wrongly arrived at a conclusion that case of the petitioner is not covered under Surajmani’s case. 7. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly the same is allowed. Impugned order dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and set aside with the direction to respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh in terms of observations made hereinabove expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six weeks. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 12, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)