IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2930 of 2021 Decided on: 5th June, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Surender Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Bir Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge CMP No.12696 of 2025 Allowed and disposed of. CWP No.2930 of 2021 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. Petitioner seeks direction to the respondents for regularization/conferment of work charge status on completion of 08 years of daily wage service w.e.f. the year 2007 as per the policy applicable at the relevant time. Prayer has also been made to condone the fictional breaks 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 allegedly given by the respondents to the petitioner during the years 2000 and 2001. According to the man-days chart enclosed with the petition as Annexure P/1, the petitioner is shown to have completed 250 days in the year 1999 and 225.5 & 214.5 days during the years 2000 & 2001, respectively. He is shown to have completed more than 300 days of continuous service in every calendar year thereafter. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner for condoning the fictional breaks and for regularizing his services/conferment of work charge status prayed for by him is covered under the decision rendered in Uggam Ram Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents are directed to examine his case in light of the aforesaid judgment within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with law as well as taking into 2 CWPOA No.6468 of 2020, decided on 09.11.2023 3 consideration the above judgment in the case of Uggam Ram2 by passing an appropriate order, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 05, 2025 Judge Mukesh