Pabli Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Pabli Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the Apex Court judgment dated 06.02.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025 (State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and others), expeditiously and preferably within four weeks, affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard; pending applications, if any, disposed of; liberty reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's case (claim to work charge status as a daily wage employee who has completed eight years' continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year) should be considered and decided by the respondents in light of the judgment dated 06.02.2025 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025 (State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and others).

Court's answer

The issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, and therefore no prejudice would be caused to either party if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the said judgment.

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the judgment dated 06.02.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025 expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, with liberty reserved to her to pursue appropriate proceedings if she remains aggrieved.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP disposed of at the instance of counsel: petitioner, claiming work charge status as a daily wage employee, sought consideration of her case in light of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment dated 06.02.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025 (State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and others), which reiterated that a daily wage employee is entitled to work charge status on completing eight years' continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year. The Additional Advocate General was not averse to the prayer. Holding that the issue stood adjudicated by the Division Bench of the High Court and the Apex Court, the Court (Sandeep Sharma, J.) directed the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the said judgment expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, after hearing her, and reserved liberty to pursue appropriate proceedings if she remained aggrieved.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.10573 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.07.2025

Pabli Devi

……...Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

…....Respondents

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

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 06.02.2025, passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, 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 having completed eight years

2

continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year, 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.

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.

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, 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 appropriate orders thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in

3

appropriate Court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending

application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

July 04, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge