Ghansham Vs the State of Hp and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.12299 of 2025 Date of Decision: 20.08.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Ghansham ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. C.N.Singh and Mr. Devender K.Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Mr. Tara Chand Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶4

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs:-

¶5

“(a) Issue writ of Certiorari, Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, by directing the respondents department to grant work charge status/regularization to the petitioner w.e.f 01.01.2000 in terms of Policy as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court as mentioned supra as with all consequential benefits i.e. Seniority, Re-fixation of Pay, Annual Increments, benefits under Assured Progression Scheme etc. and same may kindly be ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner within time bound manner.

¶6

2

¶7

(b) Issue writ of Certiorari, Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, by directing the respondents department to re-fix the pay of the petitioner accordingly and release the entire arrear in favour of the petitioner with in time bound manner along with 12% interest.

¶8

(c) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction by directing the respondents department to treat the retirement age of the petitioner as 30.06.2017 (60 years) for all intents and purposes and re-fix the pay of the petitioner accordingly and release the retiral benefits such as Pension, Gratuity as well as Leave Encashment etc, in favour of the petitioner w.e.f 01.07.2017 within time bound manner along with 12% interest for delayed payment.

¶9

(d) Cost of the writ petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 30326/2023 title The Special Land Acquisition Officer Versus Vithal Rao as well as in SLP (Civil) No. 3398/2024 title State of Rajsthan & Ors. Versus Gopal Bijawat, for dragging the petitioner into the unnecessary litigation contrary to the litigation policy framed by the respondents department.”

¶10

Before the issue raised in the instant petition could

¶11

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 representation of the petitioner in light of judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others

¶12

3

¶13

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 and further in Baldev Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, HLJ 2022 (H) (1) 151, whereby the Class-IV employees who were engaged prior to 10.05.2001 were held entitled to serve the department upto 60 years. Learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

¶14

Having perused the averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgments sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by 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.

¶15

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 judgments expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks.

¶16

4

¶17

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 appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶18

August 20, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge

Ghansham v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghansham 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

Santosh Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Others

Pawan Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ghananand Sharma Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Ankita Vs the State of Hp and Others

Dinesh Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Nuram Chand Vs State of Hp and Ors.