IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4417 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.05.2024 _____________________________________________________________________ Tej Ram ……...Petitioner Versus State of HP & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “i)That the respondents may kindly be ordered to implement the judgment passed in CWP No.8278 of 2024 dated 29.10.2024 and grant work charge status to the petitioner after the completion of 8 years of service i.e. w.e.f. 15.07.1998 as granted to similar situated employee of forest corporation in CWP No.1698/2023 titled as Prabhu Dayal Vs. State of HP & Ors, in view of the lad laid down by this Hon’ble Court in LPA 165/2021 titled as State of HP & Ors. Vs. Surajmani & Anr with all the consequential benefits thereof such as arrears of salary, pay fixation etc in the interest of justice. ii) That the respondents may be directed to grant seniority and consequential benefits from back date.” 2. Before the issue raised in the instant petition could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 12.01.2023, passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.165 of 2021, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and others, wherein it has been reiterated that daily wage employee shall be entitled to work charge status on his/her completed eight years continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar years, in a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents-State is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. 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 Division Bench of this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment supra. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, 2 preferably within a period of four weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 26th March, 2024 (Sandeep Sharma), Mamta Judge 3