2025:HHC:22621 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.3658, 3661, 3660, 3664, 3665, 3666, 3668, 3669, 3671, 3677, 3679, 3680, 3682, 3683, 3685, 3686, 3689,3691, 3694, 3697, 3699, 3701, 3702, 3704, 3705, 3707, 3708, 3710, 3712, 3713, 3716, 3719, 3721, 3723, 5893, 5906, 5907, 5911, 5917, 5921, 5923, 5927, 5940, 5943, 5946, 5948, 5950 & 5966 of 2020 Reserved on: 28.06.2025 Date of Decision: 14.07.2025 1. CWPOA No.3658 of 2020 Ramesh Chand ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 2. CWPOA No.3661 of 2020 Nek Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 3. CWPOA No.3660 of 2020 Yadav Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 4. CWPOA No.3664 of 2020 Ram Gopal ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 2 5. CWPOA No.3665 of 2020 Dhobi Devi & others ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 6. CWPOA No.3666 of 2020 Lajja Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 7. CWPOA No.3668 of 2020 Shakuntla Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 8. CWPOA No.3669 of 2020 Nirmla Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 9. CWPOA No.3671 of 2020 Brahmi Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 10. CWPOA No.3677 of 2020 Ranjeet Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 11. CWPOA No.3679 of 2020 Saina Devi ...Petitioner 3 Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 12. CWPOA No.3680 of 2020 Ruma Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 13. CWPOA No.3682 of 2020 Kamla Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 14. CWPOA No.3683 of 2020 Bir Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 15. CWPOA No.3685 of 2020 Meena Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 16. CWPOA No.3686 of 2020 Ruma Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 17. CWPOA No.3689 of 2020 Brahmi Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 18. CWPOA No.3691 of 2020 Bimla Devi ...Petitioner 4 Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 19. CWPOA No.3694 of 2020 Shanta Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 20. CWPOA No.3697 of 2020 Jagdish Chand ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 21. CWPOA No.3699 of 2020 Sheela Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 22. CWPOA No.3701 of 2020 Rajesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 23. CWPOA No.3702 of 2020 Jeewan Lal ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 24. CWPOA No.3704 of 2020 Vijay Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 25. CWPOA No.3705 of 2020 Sharda Devi ...Petitioner 5 Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 26. CWPOA No.3707 of 2020 Barfu Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 27. CWPOA No.3708 of 2020 Sheela Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 28. CWPOA No.3710 of 2020 Mehar Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 29. CWPOA No.3712 of 2020 Dhan Dev (deceased) through LRs ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 30. CWPOA No.3713 of 2020 Hema Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 31. CWPOA No.3716 of 2020 Jaiwanti Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 32. CWPOA No.3719 of 2020 Budhi Devi ...Petitioner Versus 6 State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 33. CWPOA No.3721 of 2020 Lal Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 34. CWPOA No.3723 of 2020 Meera Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 35. CWPOA No.5893 of 2020 Shridhar ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 36. CWPOA No.5906 of 2020 Kamla Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 37. CWPOA No.5907 of 2020 Kima Devi alias Hakima Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 38. CWPOA No.5911 of 2020 Sansar Chand ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 39. CWPOA No.5917 of 2020 Drompti Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 40. CWPOA No.5921 of 2020 7 Dhyan Chand ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 41. CWPOA No.5923 of 2020 Kartar Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 42. CWPOA No.5927 of 2020 Rakesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 43. CWPOA No.5940 of 2020 Vidya Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 44. CWPOA No.5943 of 2020 Gurmail Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 45. CWPOA No.5946 of 2020 Anil Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 46. CWPOA No.5948 of 2020 Kanhi Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 47. CWPOA No.5950 of 2020 Rukmani Devi ...Petitioner Versus 8 State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 48. CWPOA No.5966 of 2020 Vinay Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioners: Mr. Suresh Kumar Sharma and Mr. Ashok K. Verma, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge All these petitions have been heard and are being decided together as common questions of facts and law have arisen. 2. The petitioners were initially engaged as daily wage ‘Beldars’ and later their services were regularized under the regularization policy formulated by the State Government. 3. The petitioners are now seeking the relief for grant of work charge status immediately on completion of 8 years of their daily wage services, in terms of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.165 of 2021, titled State of H.P. & others vs. Surajmani & another, which has further been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 06.02 9 2025 passed in SLP(C) No. 23016 of 2023 titled State of Himachal Pradesh vs Surajmani and others. 4. The respondent-State has affirmed the factual position that the judgment in Suraj Mani has attained finality. 5. In Suraj Mani, it has been held that a daily wage worker having completed 8 years of continuous service will be entitled for conferment of work charge status automatically. 6. Thus, the petitioners herein being similarly situated to the petitioners in Suraj Mani (supra) cannot be treated differently. 7. In result, all these petitions are allowed to the extent of directing the respondents to confer the work charge status on the petitioners immediately on completion of 8 years daily wage continuous service, strictly in terms of the judgment dated 06.02.2025 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 23016 of 2023 titled State of Himachal Pradesh vs Surajmani and others. 8. Petitions are accordingly disposed of along with pending application(s), if any. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge July 14, 2025 (vt)