IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP Nos. 2777, 2794 and 2808 of 2011 Decided on 6th May, 2011. 1. CWP No. 2777 of 2011 Halku Ram Vs. State of H.P. and others 2. CWP No. 2794 of 2011 Gokul Chand Vs. State of H.P. and others 3. CWP No. 2808 of 2011 Kishore Chand Vs. State of H.P. and others Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the Petitioner : Mr. Yudhbir Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petitions are filed with the following prayers: CWP No. 2777 of 2011 “That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize/grant work charge status, to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1994 as per the scheme framed in Mool Raj Upadhaya vs. State of H.P. by the Hon’ble Apex Court when he is completing more than 10 years of service with all consequential benefits.” CWP No. 2794 of 2011 “That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize/grant work charge status, to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.2000 as per the scheme framed in Mool Raj Upadhaya vs. State of H.P. by the Hon’ble Apex Court when he is completing more than 10 years of service with all consequential benefits.” CWP No. 2808 of 2011 “That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize/grant work charge status, to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1994 per the scheme framed in Mool Raj Upadhaya vs. State of H.P. by the Hon’ble Apex Court when he is completing more than 10 years of service with all consequential benefits.” 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that these cases are squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P., 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. Petitioners submit that they would file appropriate representation furnishing all factual details before the competent authority within a period of one month from today. It is always open for them to do so. Thereafter, the matter will be duly considered by the second respondent in the light of the judgment, referred to above and appropriate action in accordance with law will be taken within another four months from the date of receipt of the representation along with a copy of this judgment and the copy of the judgment, referred to above by the petitioner concerned. 3. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 6th May, 2011(K) (Justice V.K. Ahuja), Judge.