1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 11402 of 2011-A with CWP Nos. 11403 of 2011-A, 11609 of 2011-A, 11610 of 2011-A, 11613 of 2011-B and 11627 of 2011-C. Decided on: December 27, 2011. ----------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No. 11402 of 2011 Kishori Lal, S/o Shri Khumbi Ram, Presently working as cleaner, H.P.P.W.D. 11th Circle, Division, Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla, H.P. Petitioner Versus 1. State of H.P. through its Principal Secretary, Department of H.P.P.W.D. to the Govt., of H.P. Shimla-2. 2. The Executive Engineer, 11th Circle, H.P.P.W.D., Division Rampur, Bushehar, District, Shimla, H.P. Respondents 2. CWP No. 11403 of 2011 1. Bansi Lal, s/o Nayaru Ram, Presently working as Helper in H.P.I&P.H. Division, Rampur, r/o village, Mashnu, Tehsil, Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla, H.P. 2. Shobha Ram, s/o Late Sh. Bhagat Ram, r/o village, Majohli, Tehsil H.P.I & P.H. Division Rampur, r/o Village, Majholi, Tehsil Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla, H.P. 3. Rattan Dass, s/o Sh. Shankar Dass Presently working as Helper in H.P. I & PH Division, Rampur, r/o village, Dobda, P.O. Tutu Pani, Tehsil Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla, H.P. 2 4. Prem Chand, s/o Sh. Kanti Ram, Presently working as Helper in H.P. (I & P.H.) Division, Rampur, r/o Village, Dobi, Tehsil Rampur Bushehar, District, Shimla, H.P. Petitioners Versus 1. State of H.P. through its Principal Secretary, Department of I.P.H. to the Govt., of H.P. Shimla-2. 2. The Executive Engineer, I.P.H. Division Rampur Bushehar, District, Shimla, H.P. Respondents 3. CWP No. 11609 of 2011 Praveen Kumari, daughter of late Sh. Madhur Manohar, resident of Chamba, P.O. Chamba, Tehsil and District Chamba, H.P. presently serving as a Beldar in the office of Horticulture Development Officer, Bilaspur, H.P. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of H.P. through Principal Secretary (Horticulture) with Headquarter at Shimla, H.P. 2. The Director of Horticulture with headquarter at Shimla, H.P. 3. The Horticulture Development Officer, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, H.P. Respondents 4. CWP No. 11610 of 2011 Durga Ram, son of Sh. Kaniya Ram, resident of Khurahal, Tehsil Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P, presently serving as a Blacksmith on regular basis in HPPWD Division Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. Petitioner 3 Versus 1. The State of H.P. through Principal Secretary (HPPWD) with Headquarter at Shimla, H.P. 2. The Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD Nirman Bhawan, Shimla-2. 3. The Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. Respondents 5. CWP No. 11613 of 2011 Bal Dass, son of Sh. Gorkha Ram, resident of Nathan, P.O. Chandi, Tehsil Kasauli, Distt. Solan, H.P. presently serving as a Beldar in Horticulture Department, Mangal, Tehsil Arki, Distt. Solan, H.P. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of H.P. through Principal Secretary (Horticulture) with Headquarter at Shimla, H.P. 2. The Director of Horticulture with Headquarter at Shimla, H.P. 3. The Deputy Director of Horticulture with Headquarter at Solan, H.P. Respondents 6. CWP No. 11627 of 2011 Ramla Devi, wife of late Sh. Tula Ram, resident of Village Jrail, P.O. Chopal, Teshil Chopal, Distt. Shimla, H.P. presently serving as a Beldar in I &PH Division, Nerva, Sub Division Chopal, Distt. Shimla,H.P. Petitioner 4 Versus 1. The State of H.P. through Principal Secretary (I&PH) with Headquarter at Shimla, H.P. 2. The Engineer-in-Chief, I&PH U.S. Club, Shimla. 3. The Executive Engineer, I&PH Division Chopal, Distt. Shimla, H.P. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud,Judge. For petitioners: M/s. B.N. Mehta & Abhyendra Gupta, Advocates, for the respective petitioners. For Respondents: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioners claim work charge status on completion of eight years of continuous service as daily waged workers. According to the petitioners, the issue is covered in their favour by the judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others. 2. It is for the respondents to examine the matter. We are informed that the State has 5 filed an appeal against the above mentioned decision. Therefore, it is made clear that the implementation of the judgment referred to above would depend on the outcome of the decision of the Apex Court. The needful action, after verifying the facts will be taken within a period of two months from the date of the judgment of the Apex Court. The petitioner concerned will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 3rd respondent/competent authority. 3. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Dev Darshan Sud), Judge 27th December, 2011 (pankaj)