Ajit Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.10919 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.07.2025

____________________ Ajit Singh	______________________	________________ …….Petitioner
State of Himachal Prade	Versus sh & Ors.	….Respondents
____________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sa Whether approved for re	______________________ ndeep Sharma, Judge. porting?¹	________________
For the Petitioner:	Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate	.
For the Respondents: ____________________	Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Generals with Mr. Ravi Advocate General. ______________________	General, Mr. Rajan Additional Advocate Chauhan, Deputy ________________

¶4

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶5

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for

¶6

following main relief:-

¶7

“i. That the respondents may be ordered to grant work charge status to the petitioner, on completion of eight years service, with all benefits incidental therein, in the interest of law and justice.”

¶8

2. Though by way of filing reply, claim as put forth in the petition, has been refuted by the respondents, but before case at hand 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

¶9

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

2

¶11

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 continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year, in a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶15

July 09, 2025 (sunil)

Ajit Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Somesh Dogra Vs State of Hp and Others

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Navin Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ankita Thakur and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Gopal Chand Vs Hrtc and Another