Dinesh Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Dinesh Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case for revision of work charge status in light of the 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 an opportunity of being heard and passing an appropriate order; liberty reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents may be directed to revise the work charge status granted to the petitioner w.e.f. the date he completed 8 years of service, with all incidental benefits and fixation of pay from due date, in view of the judgment in Surajmani's case and the order passed in the case of similarly situated employees Sh. Tek Chand and others.

Court's answer

The issue raised in the instant 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 that judgment.

Ratio / Principle

The present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the aforesaid judgment (dated 06.02.2025 in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025) expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks.

Key takeaways

While doing the needful in terms of the instant order, the authority concerned shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass an appropriate order.ratio¶15
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate Court of law if he still remains aggrieved.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP No.21147 of 2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Sandeep Sharma, J., oral), decided 02.01.2026 — Dinesh Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & others. The petitioner sought revision of his work charge status w.e.f. the date he completed 8 years of service, with incidental benefits and refixation of pay from due date, invoking the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment dated 06.02.2025 in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025 (State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and others), which reiterates that a daily wage employee is 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, and the order passed for similarly situated employee Sh. Tek Chand and others. Counsel for the petitioner confined the prayer to a direction to consider and decide her client's case in light of the Surajmani judgment; the learned Additional Advocate General was not averse. Observing that the issue already stood adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the said judgment expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, affording an opportunity of being heard, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to seek further remedies if aggrieved.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.21147 of 2025

Date of Decision: 02.01.2026

____________ ___________________________________________ Dinesh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for

following main relief:-

“ That the respondents may be ordered to revise work charge status granted to the petitioner w.e.f. the date he completed 8 years service will all the benefits incidental thereof and also in view of the judgment rendered in Surajmani’s case as well as the order passed in the case of similarly situated employees Sh. Tek Chand and others and the pay of the petitioner may be ordered to be fixed accordingly from due date.”

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 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

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

2

work charge status on completion of eight years continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar years, in a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents are 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 order. 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

January 02,2026 (shankar)