2025:HHC:4917 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3047 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Lal Chand …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Aashima Premy, Proxy counsel vice Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “ That the respondents may be ordered to grant work charge status to the petitioner from the date he completed eight years service, with all the benefits incidental thereof”. 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned proxy counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:4917 case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation dated 17.06.2024(Annexure P-2) expeditiously in terms of judgment dated 06.02.2025 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh versus Surajmani and others. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 4. Having perused the averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Recently, Hon'ble Apex Court in Surajmani case (supra) had held that a daily wage employee after his having completed eight years continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar years shall be entitled to work charge status, if it is so, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner expeditiously. 3 2025:HHC:4917 5. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 17.06.2024(Annexure P-2) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surajmani` case (supra). Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 05,2025 (shankar)