IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4828 of 2020 Decided on: 21st November, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kirpa Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Chandranarayana Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge CMP No.27731 of 2025 Allowed and disposed of. CWP No.4828 of 2020 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction for quashing the impugned order dated 28.11.2015 (Annexure P-7) for all intents and purposes. ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction by directing the respondent No.1 & 4 to grant 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 the work charge status/regularization to the petitioner after completion of eight years of daily wage service (i.e. 1.1.2002) with all consequential benefits and release the arrear in favour of petitioner within time bound manner along with 12% interest. iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction by directing the respondent No.1 & 4 to grant/release the pension as well as other retiral benefits in favour of petitioner along with 12% interest. iv) In alternatively issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction by directing the respondent department to release/pay the pension in favour of petitioner in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh Case and release the same in favour of petitioner along with interest.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner and the reliefs claimed by him have already been considered and decided in Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2 and Baldev Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case the respondents are directed to consider his case and redress his grievances in light of above decisions notwithstanding the impugned order dated 28.11.2015 (Annexure P-7), in terms of which, the respondents had declined to confer work charge status upon the petitioner only on the ground that Forest Department was not a work charged establishment. 2 Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 3 CWP No.2711 of 2017, decided alongwith connected matter on 22.02.2022 3 Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 5. In view of above, notwithstanding order dated 28.11.2015 (Annexure P-7), this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgments by passing appropriate order, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua November 21, 2025 Judge Mukesh