IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 20714/2025 Decided on: 30.12.2025 Muni Lal …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhary, learned Assistant Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the order impugned in the writ petition, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the order being passed hereinafter, reply to the petition is not required to be called for from the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 2. Petitioner had preferred Muni Lal Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 seeking conferment of work charge status from a retrospective date. The said petition was disposed of with directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the law laid down in The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Versus Surajmani & Anr.3. Pursuant to the directions, the respondents considered the case of the petitioner and rejected it on 01.09.2025 (Annexure P-1). The reasoning given for rejection is that the petitioner had already been conferred work charge status in the year 1997 on completion of 10 years of daily waged service, therefore, there was no occasion to confer upon him work charge status on his completing eight years of service. A perusal of the impugned order makes it evident that though the authority has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Surajmani & Anr. however, while rejecting the case of the petitioner, no reasoning has been given as to why the directions issued in Surajmani & Anr.3 cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner. For this reason alone, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 2/competent authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in light of the law laid down 2 CWP No. 4777/2020 decided on 01.07.2024 3 Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, decided alongwith connected civil appeals on 06.02.2025 3 in Surajmani & Anr3. by passing a speaking order within four weeks. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The present petition to stand disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 30th December, 2025(rohit)