IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPs No. 11303, 11304 and 11306 of 2011-A. Decided on: 21st December, 2011. I. CWP No. 11303 of 2011-A. 1. Mathi Ram son of Sh. Samjhu Ram, resident of village Bari, P.O. Jagothi, Tehsil Rohru, Distt. Shimla, H.P. presently serving as a Forest Worker in Forest Division Rohru, Distt. Shimla, H.P. 2. Dev Chand son of late Sh. Hari Nand, resident of village Pega, P.O. Khashdhar, Tehsil Chirgaon, Distt. Shimla, H.P. presently serving as a Forest Worker in Forest Division Rohru, Distt. Shimla, H.P. 3. Bhag Chand son of Sh. Sheetal Singh, resident of village Andhrothi, P.O. Kui, Tehsil Rohru, Distt. Shimla, H.P. presently serving as a Forest Worker in Forest Division Rohru, Distt. Shimla, H.P. 4. Net Ram son of Sh. Kalgin, resident of village Bhavnoti, Tehsil Rohru, Distt. Shimla, H.P. presently serving as a Forest Worker in Forest Division Rohru, Distt. Shimla, H.P. 5. Yashwant Singh son of Sh. Kedar Singh, resident of village Rampur, P.O. Jubbal, Tehsil Jubbal, Distt. Shimla H.P. presently serving as a Forest Guard in Forest Division, Theog, Distt. Shimla, H.P. Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of H.P. through the Principal Secretary (Forests) with Headquarter at Shimla, H.P. 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests with Hqr at Shimla, H.P. 3. The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Rohru, Distt. Shimla, H.P. 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Theog, Distt. Shimla, H.P. Respondents. 2 II. CWP No. 11304 of 2011-A. Jangbir Singh son of Sh. Balram, resident of village Dhadi Dingri, P.O. Jehar, Tehsil Pachhad, Distt. Sirmour, H.P. presently serving as a Beldarin Horticulture Department. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of H.P. through the Principal Secretary (Horticulture) with Headquarter at Shimla, H.P. 2. The Director of Horticulture with Headquarter at Shimla, H.P. 3. The District Horticulture Officer, Sirmour at Nahan, H.P. Respondents. III. CWP No. 11306 of 2011. 1. Govind son of Shri Ganga Ram, resident of Hat, P.O. Bajaura, Tehsil and Distt. Kullu, H.P. presently serving as a Beldar in Horticulture Department, Bajaura, Distt. Kullu, H.P. 2. Smt. Lahauli Devi wife of Shri Thepi Ram, resident of village Hat, P.O. Bajaura, Tehsil and Distt. Kullu, H.P. presently serving as a Beldar in Horticulture Department Bajaura, Distt. Kullu, H.P. 3. Smt. Kubja Devi d/o Shri Karam Chand, resident of village Kalehal, P.O. Bajaura, Tehsil and Distt. Kullu, H.P. presently serving as a Beldar in Horticulture Department Bajaura, Distt. Kullu, H.P. 4. Smt. Reshmu Devi wife of Sh. Jeet Ram, resident of village Hahar, P.O. Sewka, Tehsil and Distt. Kullu, H.P. presently serving as a Beldar under Deputy Director of Horticulture, Kullu, Distt. Kullu, H.P. 5. Ram Dhan son of Sh. Kishan Chand, resident of village and P.O. Thalaut, Tehsil and Distt. Mandi, H.P. presently serving in Horticulture Department at Panarsa, Distt. Mandi, H.P. 3 Versus 1. The State of H.P. through the Principal Secretary (Horticulture) with Headquarter at Shimla, H.P. 2. The Director of Horticulture with Hqr at Nav Bahar, Shimla, H.P. 3. The Deputy Director of Horticulture with Headquarter at Kullu, H.P. Respondents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioners : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petitions are filed with the following prayer: “(i) That the petitioners may be ordered to be granted work charge status from the date they completed 10 years of service with all the benefits incidental thereof such as full back wages, seniority and pay fixation etc.” 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 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 Addl. Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. Petitioners submit that they would file appropriate representation(s) furnishing all factual details before the competent authority within a period of one month from 4 today. It is always open for them to do so. Therefore, 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(s) along with a copy of this judgment and the copy of the judgment, referred to above by the petitioner concerned. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 21st December, 2011. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), (tr) Judge.