Pania Ram Vs the State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Pania Ram Vs the State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-2) 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 six weeks, affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard; liberty reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved; pending application(s), if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents-State should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-2) seeking work charge status as a daily wage employee, in light of the Apex Court's judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surajmani (Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025).

Court's answer

The issue raised in the petition already stands adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court; therefore, no prejudice would be caused to either party if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation in light of the said judgment.

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-2) in light of the aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, after affording an opportunity of being heard; liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Daily wage employee — claim for work charge status — writ petition disposed of with direction to respondents to consider and decide petitioner's representation (Annexure P-2) in light of Supreme Court judgment dated 06.02.2025 in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surajmani, reiterating 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 — decision preferably within six weeks, after affording opportunity of being heard — liberty reserved to pursue further remedies if aggrieved.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.18643 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.12.2025

Pania Ram

……...Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.

…....Respondents

Coram

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

For the Petitioner: Ms. Aafreen Kaushal, Advocate vice Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate 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 representation 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, in a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General

2

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. 3. 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 petitioner (Annexure P-2) 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.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

December 01, 2025 (sunil)