IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.2023 of 2020 Date of Decision: 12.09.2025 Balam Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Bhupinder Thakur and Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following substantive relief:- “i) That the impugned order dated 11-1-2016 may kindly be quashed and set-aside and respondents may kindly be directed to give work charge status/regularization to the applicant after the completion of eight years of his daily waged service i.e. w.e.f. 1-1-2002 instead of 13.9.2007 with all the consequential benefits as per Rakesh Kumar case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner will restrict his relief to the grant of work charge status immediately on completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service. He submits that the 2 petitioner will be satisfied at this stage in case, time bound directions are issued to respondent No.2 to reconsider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.02.2025 in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, titled as State of H.P. and Ors. vs. Surajmani and Ors. 3. The petitioner has assailed order dated 11.01.2016, whereby the representation and prayer for grant of work charge status on completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service has been rejected only on the ground that the Forest Department did not have work charge establishment. 4. Indisputably, the legal position has changed in terms of various judgments passed by this Court whereby the employees of Forest Department also have been held entitled for grant of work charge status on completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service. In Surajmani (supra), the law has been set at rest. Thus, the case of the petitioner is required to be reconsidered in light of the developments as noticed above. 3 5. Accordingly, without adverting to the merits of the case, directions are issued to respondent No.2 to reconsider the case of the petitioner within eight weeks from today and decide the same by passing a detailed and reasoned order, strictly in terms of judgment passed in Surajmani (supra). 6. The petition is accordingly disposed of along with pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge September 12, 2025 (vt)