High CourtsSingle Bench

Hari Krishan vs State Of H.P. & Anr

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 31 October 2025 · Citation: (2025) 10 SHI CK 1306

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No 8240 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 371 words

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

MP No.25678 of 2025

Allowed and disposed of.

CWP No.8240 of 2022

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

2.

This petition has been filed for grant of following relief: -

“i). That respondents may very kindly be directed to grant daily wage status/work charge status to the petitioner w.e.f. 1994 i.e. after completion of 10 years of his part time continuous services and thereafter his case may kindly be considered for work charge status/regularization after completion of 8 years of daily wage services i.e. 2002.

ii. That the respondents may very kindly be directed to count the seniority of the petitioner by giving him daily waged/work charge status from 1994 onwards and thereafter, the petitioner may kindly be considered for old pension bene its as applicable before 2003 for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits c unting his daily waged/work charge service for qualifying service for pension and petitioner may kindly be held entitled for GPF Scheme and eceive pension and pensionary benefits as applicable to employees recruited in services before 2003.

iii. That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant all monitory benefits to the petitioner from the due date with interest 9% per annum..” ”

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that case of the petitioner is covered under decisions rendered in Sarvo Devi and others Vs. State of H.P. and Ors2 and Jogi Ram Vs. State of H.P. and others3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would be content if the case of the petitioner is considered by the respondents in light of the aforesaid decisions. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this prayer.

4.

Having regard to above submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid decisions and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The decision so arrived at, shall be c mmunicated to the petitioner.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of.