Charanjeet Kumar Vs the Hpsfc and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Charanjeet Kumar Vs the Hpsfc and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the Apex Court judgment dated 06.02.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025 (State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and Others) expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard; liberty reserved to pursue appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved; pending application(s), if any, also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

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

Ratio / Principle

Having perused the averments and the relief vis-à-vis the judgment sought to be relied upon, the Court found that the issue raised in the petition already stood adjudicated by a Division Bench of this Court and by the Hon'ble Apex Court, so no prejudice would be caused in directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of that judgment.

Key takeaways

The petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the judgment dated 06.02.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025 expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks.ratio¶16
The authority concerned, while acting in terms of the order, shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and pass appropriate orders; liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate Court of law if he still remains aggrieved.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH (Sandeep Sharma, J.), CWP No.8375 of 2025, decided 21.05.2025 — Work charge status. Petitioner Charanjeet Kumar prayed for grant of work charge status on completion of 8 years' service with incidental benefits. Without arguing the matter on merits, counsel for the petitioner confined the prayer to a direction that the respondents consider and decide the case in light of the Apex Court judgment dated 06.02.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and Others, wherein it was reiterated that a daily wage employee becomes entitled to work charge status on completing eight years' continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year, in a time-bound manner; counsel for the respondents was not averse. Observing that the issue already stood adjudicated by a Division Bench of this Court and by the Apex Court, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to consider and decide the case in light of that judgment expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, after affording the petitioner a hearing and passing appropriate orders; liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also disposed of. (Content of the Surajmani judgment is reported as relied-upon precedent, not as this Court's ratio.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.8375 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.05.2025

__________________________________________________________ Charanjeet Kumar …….Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Corporation and Another ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹

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

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for

following main relief:-

“i. 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.”

Before 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 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

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

-2-

status on his/her having completed eight years continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar years, in a time bound manner. Learned counsel representing the respondents 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 case of the petitioner in light of judgment supra.

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 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

May 21, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)