IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 62 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Hem Raj …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … 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 and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Since, it is apparent from the compliance affidavit dated 24.06.2025 filed under the signatures of Superintending Engineer, HPPWD, Jogindernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh that in terms of order dated 6th August, 2018, passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A (M) No.612 of 2017, titled as Hem Raj vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, respondents have considered the case of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status in the year, 2021, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings, 2. Though, learned counsel representing the petitioner attempted to argue that there was positive direction to regularize the services of the petitioner, however, having perused the mandate contained in the order/judgment, sought to be executed, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Careful perusal of order/judgment clearly suggests that there was a positive direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization on completion of 8 years of service with all consequential benefits in accordance with law, however respondents after having considered the case of the petitioner, found him not entitled for the benefit of regularization. 4. No doubt, now in terms of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and others, daily wage employee, who has completed eight years continuous service with a minimum 240 days in each calendar year is required to be conferred work charge status, but that fact may not be relevant for adjudication of the case at hand, rather for that purpose, petitioner herein may either file fresh representation to the competent authority or may approach competent court of law by way of substantive writ petition. 5. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of as having rendered infructuous. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 02,2025 (shankar)