Kewal Krishan Vs the State of Hp and Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.17485 of 2025

Date of Decision: 11.11.2025

____________ ___________________________________________ Kewal Krishan …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________

¶5

Coram:

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals, for respondent No.1/State. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶8

____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶9

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for

¶10

following main relief:-

¶11

“ That the respondents may kindly 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.”

¶12

Before the issue raised in the instant petition could be

¶13

heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel representing the

¶14

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

¶15

Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, titled State of

¶16

Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and others, wherein

¶17

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

¶18

2

¶19

it has been reiterated that daily wage employee shall be entitled to work charge status on completion of eight years continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar years, in a time bound manner. Learned counsels representing the respondents are not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶23

November 11,2025 (shankar)

Kewal Krishan v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kewal Krishan v. the State of Hp and Another

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

Pankaj Kumar Thakur Vs the State of Hp and Anr.

Sudershan Singh Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Devi Chand Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Pradeep Kumar and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Radha Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Bhim Chand Verma Vs the Hrtc and Another