Tule Ram Vs the State of Hp and Others

¶1

2025:HHC:6839

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No.3865 of 2024 Date of Decision: 20.03.2025

¶4

Tule Ram

¶5

……...Petitioner Versus

¶6

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

¶7

…....Respondents

¶8

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K.Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State.

¶9

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶10

Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. A.K.Gupta, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that though in the case at hand petitioner has already completed eight years service on daily wage basis with 240 days in each calendar year, but yet he has not been granted work-charge status. Mr. A.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Surajmani & Anr., states that now in terms of

¶11

aforesaid judgment, daily wage employee after his having completed 240 days in each calendar year is required to be granted work-charge status.

¶12

Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that in case the petitioner has completed eight years service on daily wage basis with 240 days in each calendar year, his case shall be considered in light of Surajmani (supra).

¶13

3 Consequently, in view of above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Surajmani (supra) , expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks. Ordered accordingly. 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 thereafter. In case the petitioner is found entitled to the relief in terms of judgment passed in Suraj Mani ( supra ), he shall

¶14

be granted similar benefits, but on notional basis from due date.

¶15

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶16

March 20, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge

Tule Ram v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tule Ram v. the State of Hp and Others

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

Bal Krishan Vs the Hrtc and Another

Jai Lal Rana Vs Rohan Chand Thakur and Anr.

Gurmail Singh Vs Cskhpkv

Megh Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Hp and Another

Prajesh Patial Vs the Union of India and Others