IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 11089 of 2011-I Date of Decision 20th December, 2011 ________________________________________________________ 1. Sh. Shyam Lal, son of Sh. Sita Ram, resident of village Nand Pur, P.O. Lodhi Majra, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan HP 2. Sh. Bhag Singh, son of Sh. Munshi Ram, resident of village Benahra, P.O. Sai, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan HP 3. Sh. Chuhru Ram, son of Sh. Ram Sawrup, resident of village Raipur, P.O. Lodhi Majra, Tehsil Nalagarh, Distt. Solan HP 4. Sh. Ram Krishan, son of Shri Sant Ram, resident of village Aloyan, P.O. Goyala Pener, Tehsil Nalagarh, Distt. Solan HP 5. Sh. Jeet Singh, son of Shri Shri Ram, resident of village Kalayanpur, P.O. Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, Distt. Solan HP ….Petitioners. Versus. 1. State of H.P., through Secretary (Forest), to the Government of H.P. Shimla-2 2. The Chief Conservator of Forest, Shimla HP. 3. The Divisional Forest Officer, Nalagarh, Forest Division, District Solan H.P. ….Respondents. Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents _______________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. ________________________________________________________________ 2 For the Petitioners: Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass, Sood, Addl. Advocate General. __________________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (oral) The petitioners claim work charge status on completion of eight years of continuous service as daily waged debldars. 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 as Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 28.7.2010. It is for the respondents to examine the matter. We are informed that the State has 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 petitioners will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition before the third respondent/competent authority. 2. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice. December 20, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge