Disposed¶16

Malkiat Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC10 Oct 2025CWP/15891/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

work charge status; daily wage employee; 8 years continuous service; minimum 240 days per calendar year; time bound decision; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surajmani, Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025 (SC, 06.02.2025); CWP No.15891 of 2025; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; Sandep Sharma J.; disposed of with four-week direction; opportunity of hearing; liberty reserved.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case for work charge status in light of the judgment dated 06.02.2025 in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025 (State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surajmani) expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, after affording him an opportunity of being heard; liberty reserved to seek further remedies if aggrieved. ¶16

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents may be directed to grant work charge status to the petitioner from the date he completed 8 years of daily wage service with all incidental benefits, or in any event to consider his case in light of the Supreme Court judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surajmani.

¶6

Court's answer

The issue raised in the petition already stands adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, and 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.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of the judgment dated 06.02.2025 in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025 (State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surajmani), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks.

¶16

Key takeaways

While deciding the matter, the concerned authority shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass an appropriate order; liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings if he remains aggrieved, and pending application(s) stand disposed of.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Malkiat Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, CWP No.15891 of 2025 (HP High Court, decided 10.10.2025, Sandeep Sharma, J.) — Petitioner, a daily wage employee who had completed 8 years of service, sought work charge status with incidental benefits. Without deciding the issue afresh, the Court noted the issue already stood adjudicated by the Division Bench of the High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surajmani, Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025 (judgment dated 06.02.2025), which reiterated entitlement of daily wage employees to work charge status on completion of eight years continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year in a time bound manner. Petition disposed of with direction to respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of that judgment expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, affording an opportunity of being heard; liberty reserved to pursue appropriate proceedings if aggrieved; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.15891 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.10.2025

¶3

____________ ___________________________________________ Malkiat Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioners: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶4

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for

¶5

following main relief:-

¶6

“ That the respondents may be ordered to grant work charge status to the petitioner from the date he completed 8 years daily wage service with all the benefits incidental thereof.”

¶7

Before the issue raised in the instant petition could be

¶8

heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that her client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of judgment dated 06.02.2025 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, titled State of

¶9

Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and others, wherein

¶10

it has been reiterated that daily wage employee shall be entitled to

¶11

work charge status on completion of eight years continuous service

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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 order. 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

¶17

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶18

October 10,2025

¶19

(shankar)

Malkiat Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malkiat 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naresh Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Savitri Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Vivek Modgil and Another Vs State of Hp and Others

Himani Dhiman and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Roop Ram Vs State of Hp and Others

Ajeet Singh Diwan and Others Vs State of Hp and Others