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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of without examining merits, with direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's case in accordance with the law laid down in Surajmani and pass appropriate order within six weeks, and to communicate a copy of that order to the petitioner; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a retired employee of the respondent I&PH Department, is entitled to a direction that the respondents grant him work charge status from the date he completed eight years of service, with all incidental benefits. +1 more

Court's answer

Without examining the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with the law laid down in Surajmani and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within six weeks.

Ratio / Principle

A copy of the order so passed by the respondents/competent authority is to be communicated to the petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Himachal Pradesh High Court (Shimla), CWP No.328 of 2026, decided 06.01.2026 (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.) — Mohinder Singh v. State of H.P. and others. The petitioner, a retired employee of the respondent I&PH Department, prayed for a direction to grant him work charge status from the date he completed eight years of service, with all incidental benefits. Learned counsel submitted that the issue was covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Surajmani & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, decided alongwith connected civil appeals on 06.02.2025) and sought that the respondents examine the petitioner's case in light of that judgment within a fixed time schedule; the learned Additional Advocate General was not averse to this prayer. Having regard to the submissions, but without examining the merits, the Court disposed of the writ petition with direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's case in accordance with the law laid down in Surajmani and pass appropriate order within six weeks, with a copy of the order so passed to be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.328 of 2026

Decided on: 6^th January, 2026

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mohinder Singh …..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and others .....Respondents

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the Petitioner: Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

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

Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the

parties, the matter is heard at this stage.

3. Petitioner is retired employee of the respondentI&PH Department and has prayed for direction to the respondents to grant him work charge status from the date he completed eight years of service with all incidental benefits.

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

2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the issue involved in the writ petition and the relief prayed for by the petitioner are now covered by the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Versus Surajmani & Anr.² . Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case the respondents are directed to examine his case in light of the aforesaid judgment within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer.

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 respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with law laid down in Surajmani² 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.

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

Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 06, 2026 Judge Mukesh

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