Roop Lal and Others Vs the Hpsebl and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Roop Lal and Others Vs the Hpsebl and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' representation in light of the judgments in Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025 (State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and others) and SLP(C) No. 10719-10720 of 2025 (Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. Vs. Nanak Chand & Ors.), expeditiously and preferably within six weeks, affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard; liberty reserved to pursue further proceedings in an appropriate Court of law if still aggrieved.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, engaged as daily wage employees, are entitled to work charge status upon completion of eight years' continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court; accordingly, no prejudice would be caused to either party if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the petitioners' case in light of those judgments.

Key takeaways

The petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgments.ratio¶9
Such consideration and decision is to be made expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks.ratio¶9
While doing the needful in terms of the order, the authority concerned shall afford the petitioners an opportunity of being heard and pass appropriate orders thereupon.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP No. 17861 of 2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Sandeep Sharma, J., oral), decided 18.11.2025 — Roop Lal & Ors. v. HPSEBL & Ors.: Petition by daily wage employees seeking work charge status (eight years' continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year) disposed of without adjudication on merits, the Court finding the issue already adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court. Respondents directed to consider and decide the petitioners' representation in light of Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025 (State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and others) and SLP(C) No. 10719-10720 of 2025 (Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. Vs. Nanak Chand & Ors.), expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, affording an opportunity of being heard; liberty reserved to the petitioners to pursue further proceedings if still aggrieved; pending application(s), if any, also disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.17861 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.11.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Roop Lal & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus HPSEBL & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sourabh Chand, Advocate vice Ms. Vandana Misra, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 petitioners states that his clients would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners 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 vs. Surajmani and others and in SLP(C) No. 10719-10720 of 2025 titled as Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. Vs. Nanak Chand & Ors. , wherein it has been reiterated that daily wage employee shall be entitled to work charge status on his/her having completed eight years

2

continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year, in a time bound manner. Learned counsel representing the respondents is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners.

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 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 petitioners in light of judgments supra.

Consequently, in view of the above, the present

petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgments 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 petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of

3

law, if they still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any,

also stands disposed of.

November 18, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge