IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.733 of 2026 Date of Decision: 08.01.2026 __________________________________________________________ Mr. Bazir Mohd. (Baziru) …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Anchal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein is aggrieved of order dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure P-5), whereby his claim for grant of work charge status has been rejected on the ground that work charge establishment has ceased to exist. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Ms. Anchal Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that now in light of judgment dated 06.02.2025, passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 vs. Surajmani and Others, work charge status is required to be granted to daily wage employee, who has completed eight years of service on daily wage basis with 240 days in each calendar year. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that now in terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Surajmani (supra), prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of work charge status deserves to be considered. 4. If the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is read in its entirety, it clearly suggests that work charge establishment is not prerequisite for grant of work charge status, rather same is required to be granted to daily wage employee, who has completed eight years of service on daily wage basis with 240 days in each calendar year. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure P-5) is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Surajmani (supra) and thereafter appropriate orders for grant of work 3 charge status as well as pay fixation be passed expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six weeks. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 08, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)