Disposed

Ravi Kumar v. the Cskhpkvv and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Sept 2026CWP/16254/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, engaged as a daily wage helper since 1996 and regularized in 2010, sought work charge status after eight years of daily wage service relying on Supreme Court judgments in Surajmani and Sarwan Kumar. The High Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent university to consider and decide the petitioner's case in accordance with those judgments within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to consider and decide petitioner's case for work charge status in accordance with Surajmani and Sarwan Kumar judgments within six weeks and communicate the order to petitioner.

Ravi Kumar Vs the Cskhpkvv and Others — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.16254 of 2026

¶3

Decided on: 18.09. 2026

¶4

Ravi Kumar …..Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya Palampur .....Respondent

¶7

Coram

¶8

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶10

For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Rana, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Prince Chauhan, Advocate.

¶11

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶12

Notice. Mr. Prince Chauhan, learned Standing Counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent.

¶13

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage.

¶14

2. Petitioner essentially seeks a direction to the respondent-Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya (in short ‘respondent-University’) to confer work charge status upon him on completion of his eight years of daily wage service.

¶15

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶16

¶17

According to the petitioner, he was engaged as Helper on daily wage basis in the respondent-University in the year 1996. He completed 240 days in each calendar year w.e.f. 1997. Services of the petitioner were regularized on 20.05.2010 as Helper. Petitioner’s grievance is that he was entitled to work charge status on completion of his eight years of daily wage service, but this benefit has been wrongly denied to him by the respondent.

¶18

3. Relief qua conferment of work charge status on completion of eight years of service has been claimed on the strength of the decision rendered in Sarwan Kumar

¶19

Versus Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Krishi

¶20

Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur² , as affirmed in Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi

¶21

Vishvavidyalaya Versus Sarwan Kumar³ , under the lead case State of HP and others Versus Surajmani and Anr.⁴

¶22

4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record copy of the decision rendered in The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Versus Surajmani & Anr.⁵ . Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya Versus

¶23

2 O.A.(D) No.404 of 2018, decided on 20.03.2019

¶24

3 CWP No.1396 of 2019, decided on 12.01.2023

¶25

4 LPA No.165 of 2021, decided alongwith connected matters on 12.01.2023

¶26

5 Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, decided alongwith connected appeals on 06.02.2025

¶27

¶28

Sarwan Kumar⁶ was one of the matters connected and decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court alongwith the case of Surajmani⁵ . Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case the respondent is directed to examine his case in light of the aforesaid judgment within a fixed time schedule. Learned counsel for the respondent is not averse to this prayer.

¶29

5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent/ competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with law laid down in Surajmani²

¶30

& Sarwan Kumar⁶ and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within six weeks from today. Copy of the order so passed, be also communicated to the petitioner.

¶31

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶32

September 18, 2026 R..Atal

¶33

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶34

6 Civil Appeal No.1859 of 2025, decided alongwith connected appeals on 06.02.2025

Ravi Kumar v. the Cskhpkvv and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar v. the Cskhpkvv and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases