Roop Singh Vs the Hpsfc and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Roop Singh Vs the Hpsfc 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 claim for work charge status in light of the judgment dated 12.01.2023 in LPA No.165 of 2021 (State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and others), preferably within four weeks, after affording an opportunity of being heard and passing a detailed speaking order; liberty reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved; pending application(s) disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents may be directed to grant work charge status to the petitioner on completion of 8 years of service, with all benefits incidental thereto.

Court's answer

The issue raised in the petition already stands adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, and no prejudice would be caused to either party if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the petitioner's case 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 case in light of the relied-upon Division Bench judgment expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and passing a detailed speaking order, with liberty reserved to pursue further proceedings if still aggrieved.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service Law — Daily wage employee — Work charge status — Petition by daily wager seeking work charge status on completion of 8 years' service disposed of with direction to respondents (HPSFC and Ors.) to consider and decide his case in light of Division Bench judgment dated 12.01.2023 in LPA No.165 of 2021, State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and others (which reiterated entitlement of daily wage employees 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 four weeks, after hearing, by detailed speaking order — liberty reserved to pursue further remedies; pending application(s) disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.7085 of 2025 Date of Decision: 1.5.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Roop Singh

……...Petitioner

Versus

HPSFC and Ors.

…....Respondents

Coram

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

For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate.

s

For the respondents: Mr. Vishwas Kaushal, Advocate vice Mr. Raman Ravi Verma, Advocate.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for

following main relief:-

“That the respondents may be ordered to grant work charge status to the petitioner on completion of 8 years service, with all benefits incidental thereof.”

2. 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 12.01.2023, passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.165 of 2021, titled State of

Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and others , wherein it

2 -

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 year, in a time bound manner. Learned counsel representing the respondents is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

3. 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.

4. 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 detailed speaking order 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.

May 1, 2025 (manjit)