IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2710 of 2023 Decided on: 16th September, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Radha Petter …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath and Mr. Piyush Mehta, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 5. None for respondent No.6. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner is wife of late Sh. Prem Petter, who was employed as Driver in the respondent-Public Works Department. Sh. Prem Petter retired on 31.12.2018. Original Application, bearing O.A. No.2266 of 2019, was instituted by him before the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal seeking direction to the respondents to regularize his services w.e.f. 01.01.2001 or 01.04.2001 with all consequential benefits in accordance with law laid down in 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Rakesh Kumar Versus State of H.P. & ors.2. Relief of Death- cum-Retirement Gratuity for regular and daily wage service rendered by him was also prayed for. The original application was decided on 19.06.2019 with direction to the respondents to consider the case of Sh. Prem Petter on the analogy of the decision cited by him and to grant him the same benefits in case he was found to be similarly situated. Pursuant thereto, respondents considered the case and vide office order dated 18.01.2020 (Annexure P-8), held that work charge status of Class-III (Driver) category had been abolished in the Public Works Department; Work charge establishment had ceased to exist in the Public Works Department w.e.f. 01.04.2001 and accordingly, rejected his case. Petitioner has inter alia, laid challenge to this office order and has also prayed for consequential relief including release of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity and Pension. 2. Learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that the issue involved in the writ petition and the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner are now covered by the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Versus Surajmani & 2 CWP No.2735 of 2019, decided alongwith connected matters on 28.07.2010 3 Anr.3. The respondent-Department was also the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in some of the connected matters. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case the respondents are directed to examine her case in light of the aforesaid judgment within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 5. In view of above submissions and the decision rendered in Surajmani3, the impugned office order dated 18.01.2020 (Annexure P-8) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner/her late husband-Sh. Prem Petter strictly in accordance with law laid down in Surajmani3 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within six weeks from today. In case the husband of the petitioner is held entitled to conferment of work charge status, consequential benefits thereof, viz. his pay fixation and due & admissible retiral benefits, be released in favour of the petitioner within the aforesaid period. Copy of the order so passed, be also communicated to the petitioner. 3 Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, decided alongwith connected civil appeals on 06.02.2025 4 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 16, 2025 Judge Mukesh