2026:HHC:11392 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3855 of 2024 Decided on: 09.04.2026 Sh. Ramesh Chand …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : M/s Chandranarayana Singh, Dr. Nidhi Singh, Anshul Gandhi and Ramesh Kumar, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General for respondents –State. : Mr. Susheel, Gautam, Advocate for respondents No. 3 and 4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) CMP No. 5151 of 2026 For the reasons stated therein, this application is allowed and the writ petition is ordered to be taken up for hearing today itself. CWP No. 3855 of 2024 2. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard and is being decided today itself. 3. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:11392 prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the Respondents to grant the work charge status/regularization to the petitioner after completion of eight years of regular daily wage service i.e. w.e.f. 01.01.2011 with all consequential benefits. ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to re-fix the pay of the Petitioner and pay the entire consequential benefits in favour of the Petitioner with in time bound manner along with12% Interest. iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, by directing the respondents, to regularize the service of Petitioners after completion of eight years of regular daily wage service by observing the Petitioner permanently in the department as done in the case of other similar situated persons with all consequential benefits as done in the past. iv) Or in Alternative Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, by directing the respondents to pay the equal pay and perks to Petitioner from the initial date of his appointment Or after completion of eight years of regular daily completion of eight years of daily wage service as paid to regular employees of the 3 2026:HHC:11392 government department in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India with all consequential benefits.” 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue being raised by the petitioner is no more res integra, as a person similarly situated as a petitioner had approached this Court by way of CWPOA No.3562 of 2019, titled Sant Ram and another Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, which was allowed, Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in which case was dismissed and the judgments passed by this Court in which matter were upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Learned counsel drew the attention of the Court to the reply filed by the respondents and by referring to Para- 19 of the reply, he submitted that it stands admitted by the respondents that the case of the petitioner is similar to that of Sant Ram, but as per the State it had assailed the said order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Learned Counsel submitted that now as the matter stands decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and as the respondents themselves admit that the case of the petitioner was similar to Sant Ram. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand submits that the case of the petitioner is not similar to Sant Ram, 4 2026:HHC:11392 but is fundamentally different and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim the same relief as was granted to Sant Ram. 6. Having heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and also learned Additional Advocate General and having perused the pleadings of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as stands granted to Sant Ram in light of the admission made by the respondents-State in its reply that the case of the petitioner was similar to Sant Ram. 7. Para-19 of the reply of the State is quoted herein below:- “19. That with respect to order of this Hon'ble Court in CWPOA No. 3562 of 2019 titled as Sant Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. dated 06.09.2022, it is admittedly correct that case of the present petitioner is similar to that of Sh. Sant Ram. However, the State of H.P. has already assailed this order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide Diary No. 10840/2024 whereby, on dated 26.04.2024 Hon'ble Apex Court has ordered to maintain status quo, copy of order dated 26.04.2024 is annexed as Annexure R-4.” 8. Thus, in the light of the said reply, which is supported on the affidavit of none other than the Principal Chief Conservative of Forest-cum-Chief Project Director, Integrated Development Project-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Himachal Pradesh Natural 5 2026:HHC:11392 Resource Management Society, Solan, the contention now raised by the State that the case of the petitioner is different from Sant Ram cannot be accepted. 9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and respondents are directed to confer the benefits upon the petitioner by treating the directions passed in Sant Ram’s case, as having been passed in the case of this petitioner also. The daily wage services rendered by the petitioner shall be regularized from due date notionally and actual benefits shall accrue three years preceding the date of filing of the writ petition by the petitioner. Needful be done within three months from today. 10. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 09, 2026 (narender)