Naryan Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Naryan Singh Vs the State of Hp 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 representation (Annexure P-5) in light of the Apex Court judgment dated 06.02.2025 in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025 (State of Himachal Pradesh and others v. Surajmani and others), expeditiously and preferably within four weeks, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and passing a detailed speaking order; liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to be granted work charge status/regularization on completion of 8 years of daily wage service, alongwith all consequential benefits including pay fixation, pay arrears, increments, seniority and other benefits.

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; accordingly, no prejudice would be caused to either party if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of that judgment.

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-5) in light of the judgment dated 06.02.2025 in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025 (State of Himachal Pradesh and others v. Surajmani and others), expeditiously, preferably within four weeks.

Key takeaways

The authority deciding the representation shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and pass a detailed speaking order thereupon.ratio¶21
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate Court of law if he still remains aggrieved; pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Sandeep Sharma, J., oral) — CWP No.9279 of 2025, decided 04.06.2025: Petitioner Naryan Singh sought work charge status/regularization on completion of 8 years of daily wage service with consequential benefits (pay fixation, arrears, increments, seniority). Before merits adjudication, counsel for the petitioner confined the request to consideration of his case in light of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment dated 06.02.2025 in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, State of Himachal Pradesh and others v. Surajmani and others — recorded as reiterating that a daily wage employee is entitled to work charge status on completed eight years' continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year, in a time-bound manner — and the Additional Advocate General for the State was not averse. Finding the issue already adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-5) in light of that judgment expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, 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 applications disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.9279 of 2025

Date of Decision: 04.06.2025

____________ ___________________________________________ Naryan Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the Petitioner: Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

__________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for

following main relief:-

“That the respondents may be directed to grant the work charge status/regularization to Petitioner immediately on completion of 8 years of daily wage service w.e.f. 01-012004 alongwith all consequential benefits including pay fixation, pay arrears, increments, seniority and other benefits etc.”

Before the issue raised in the instant petition could be

heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that his client would be content and satisfied in case

directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the

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

2

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 status on his/her completed eight years continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year, in a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General 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 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 representation (Annexure P-5) 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

3

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.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 4, 2025 manjit