Prem Singh vs State Of H.P. And Others

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on be half of the respondents.

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

Petitioner is serving in the respondent-H.P. Public Works 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.

Learned vice counsel appearing 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. The respondent-Department was also the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in s me f the connected matters. Learned vice counsel fur her 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.

Having regard to the afore-submissions, but wit out 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 Surajmani[Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, decided alongwith connected civil appeals on 06.02.2025] 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.