Bhag Chand Vs Hpsebl and Anr. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Bhag Chand Vs Hpsebl and Anr. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. Vs. Nanak Chand & Ors. (SLP(C) No.1071910720 of 2025), expeditiously, preferably within four weeks; if found similarly situated to the petitioner in that judgment, similar benefits to be extended, subject to affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; all pending applications stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents may be ordered to grant work charge status to the petitioner from the date he completed 8 years of service, with all benefits incidental thereto. +1 more

Court's answer

If the petitioner is found to be similarly situated to the petitioner in the aforesaid Apex Court judgment, he would be extended similar benefits.

Ratio / Principle

The issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. Vs. Nanak Chand & Ors., and consequently there is no impediment in issuing directions to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in the light of that judgment.

Key takeaways

The present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in the light of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks.ratio¶¶14
The authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of the instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon.ratio¶¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (CWP No.16081 of 2025) by Sh. Bhag Chand against HPSEBL seeking work charge status from the date he completed 8 years of service, with all incidental benefits, was disposed of by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma) on 15.10.2025. Relying on the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. Vs. Nanak Chand & Ors. (SLP(C) No.1071910720 of 2025), in which the identical issue was held to already stand adjudicated, the Court directed the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in the light of that judgment expeditiously, preferably within four weeks; if the petitioner is found similarly situated to the petitioner therein, similar benefits are to be extended, after affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order. All pending applications were disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.16081 of 2025 Date of Decision: 15.10.2025

____________________________________________________________ Sh. Bhag Chand …….Petitioner Versus HPSEBL and Another ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following

main relief:-

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

Before notice, if any, could be issued to the respondents,

learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No.1071910720 of 2025 titled Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. Vs. Nanak Chand & Ors. , states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Hon’ble Apex Court in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. (supra) and as such, petitioner 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 aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner.

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

-2-

Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate, while putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, fairly states that he has no objection to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

Having perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Hon’ble Apex Court in aforesaid judgment, if it is so, there appears to be no impediment in issuing directions to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment.

Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of the instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereupon.

All pending applications stand disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

October 15, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)