IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5427 of 2022 Date of Decision: 23.09.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Milkhi Ram ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Guna Nand Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein is aggrieved by order dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure P-1), whereby prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status/regularization has been rejected on the ground that post of Mazdoor was not lying vacant at the relevant time and judgment by this Court in Mathu Ram’s case is not applicable in the case at hand. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that now since issue with regard to conferment of work charge status 2 has been finally decided by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and others, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Surajmani (supra). 2. learned counsel representing the respondents are not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Since it is quite apparent from the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Surajmani (supra) that daily wage employee is entitled to work charge status on his/her having completed eight years continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year, coupled with the fact that petitioner in the case at hand has already completed eight years with 240 days in each calendar year, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment detailed hereinabove. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and office order dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to 3 consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of Surajmani (supra) expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from today. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. September 23, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge