IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1541 of 2010 Decided on: 28.10.2010. Liaq Ram ….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P.& anothers. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. for respondents No. 1 and 3. Mr. Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): The petition has been filed with following prayer:- “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the work charge status/regularisation to the petitioners w.e.f. The year 2001 with all consequential benefits as per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and as per the policy framed by the State Government in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. Admittedly, the issue pertaining to this writ petition was considered by this Court leading to a judgment in LPA No. 115/2009. The text of the judgment reads as follows:- “The second respondent in the writ petition is the appellant before this Court against the judgment dated 30th March, 2009 in CWP(T) No. 4161 of 2008. the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the -2- learned Single Judge has granted the relief beyond the scope of the writ petition. We find from the judgment that the learned Single Judge only directed the implementation of the Scheme for Betterment (Appointment) and Regularisation of Muster Roll/Daily Wage Workers in Himachal Pradesh. On a pointed query, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Scheme is applicable in the Corporation. If that be so, we do not find anything wrong in the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. The Judgment only directs the appellant to implement the Scheme, which admittedly is applicable to the Corporation. There is nothing more. Hence, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.” 3. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to take appropriate action in the light of judgment extracted as above within a period of three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner. 4. With these observations, petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. ( Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (V.K. Sharma), Judge. October 28, 2010 (LSP/VT)