IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 5611 of 2026. Decided on : 16 th July , 2026. Shish Ram ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Arhant Mahajan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Addl. Advocate General Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral). CMP No. 17049 of 2026. By way of this application, a prayer has been made to place on record documents appended therewith. The application is disposed of by taking on record all the documents appended therewith. CWP No. 5611 of 2026. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for following reliefs:- “(i) To direct the respondents to grant work charge status to the petitioner after completion of 8 years of service w.e.f. March, 2008 and to bring him in the minimum pay scale to the cadre post along with all consequential benefits such as seniority, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 continuity, payment of arrears, pay fixation, pay protection and regularization etc. (ii) To direct the respondents to grant the petitioner work charge status and other consequential benefits such as seniority, continuity, payment of arrears, pay fixation, pay protection and regularization etc., in terms of the judgment rendered in LPA No. 165 of 2021 by the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. dated 12.01.2023, titled as State of H.P. & Another vs. Surajmani & others, which has further been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No. 1595 of 2025 (arising out of SLP © No. 23016 of 2023, titled as State of H.P. & Another vs. Surajmani & others. )” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the reply filed by the State in general and para 10 thereof in particular. By referring to the averments made in para 10(ii) of the reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, as far as the State is concerned, it stands admitted by the State that work-charge status has to be granted to the petitioner, but then, according to the State, the same shall be granted to him, once the issue regarding his date of engagement is decided. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter has drawn the attention of this court to Annexure P-1, which is the Award passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Shimla, dated 02.07.2016. By referring to para 2 thereof, he has submitted that in the table, which depicts the details 3 of the workmen, the name of the petitioner is reflected at serial number 5 and it is evident from the said table that the date of engagement of the petitioner was in the month of February 2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submitted that there is no ambiguity even as far as the date of engagement of the petitioner is concerned. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that appropriate call with regard to the conferment of work-charge status, in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ ble Supreme Court in State of H.P. & Another vs. Surajmani & others, SLP No. 1595 of 2025 (arising out of SLP © No. 23016 of 2023, titled as State of H.P. & Another vs. Surajmani & others. ) shall be taken by the Competent Authority within a period of six weeks from today and the contents of para 2 of the award shall also be taken into consideration for the purpose of ascertaining the date of engagement of petitioner. 6. In light of the statement made at Bar by the learned Additional Advocate General, this petition is disposed of with the direction that the work-charge status be conferred upon the petitioner in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 4 Surajmani’s case (supra) within a period of six weeks from today. As far as the issue regarding the date of engagement is concerned, the same shall be construed to be the month of February 2000, as is held by the learned Labour Court in its award. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge 16th July, 2026. (jai)