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

Biri Singh 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 judgment dated 06.02.2025 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025 (State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surajmani), expeditiously and preferably within six weeks, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard; liberty reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's claim — as a daily wage employee seeking work charge status on completion of eight years' continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year — in light of the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment dated 06.02.2025 in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surajmani.

Court's answer

Having perused the averments in the petition and the relief prayed vis-à-vis the judgment sought to be relied upon, the Court found that the issue raised in the petition already stood adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, and that no prejudice would be caused to either party if the respondents were directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation in light of that judgment.

Ratio / Principle

The petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the aforesaid (Surajmani) judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks.

Key takeaways

The authority concerned, while acting on the direction, was to afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and pass appropriate orders thereupon.ratio¶11
Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate Court of law if he still remained aggrieved.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition disposed of, without adjudication on merits, with a direction to the respondents-State to consider and decide the petitioner's case 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 v. Surajmani and others, wherein it was reiterated that a daily wage employee is entitled 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. The decision was to be made expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard; liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue further proceedings if still aggrieved. (Sandeep Sharma, J.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.16719 of 2025 Date of Decision: 29.10.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Biri Singh

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

……...Petitioner Versus …....Respondents

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates 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 her 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 continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year,

2

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 representation 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 six weeks from today. 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.

October 29, 2025 (sunil)

Judge

(Sandeep Sharma),