IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 7573 of 2010. Decided on: 15th December, 2010. Dhabe Ram. …Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & ors. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to give work charged status to the petitioner against the post of Matefrom the year 1997 in view of ratio laid down in Mool Raj Upadhaya vs. State of H.P. and Gauri Dutt vs. State of H.P. since the petitioner as per Annexure P-1 has worked as daily wager Mate from the year 1986 till 1996 and he has also completed 240 days in each calendar year as daily wager Mate but due to clerical mistake of the respondent department, the petitioner was given work charged status as Beldar. (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and the respondents may kindly be directed to give promotion to the petitioner to the post of Mate since he fulfills all the qualifications and from last 12 years, the assurances were given to the petitioner to 2 give promotion since he was given wrong work charged status due to clerical mistake of the respondent department and the promotion file of the petitioner is with the higher authorities.” 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered in Gauri Dutt and others vs. State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366 and the decision of the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P., 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to approach the first respondent within a period of one month, in which case the matter will be duly considered by the first respondent in the light of the judgments, 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 copies of the judgments, referred to above. 3. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 15th December, 2010 (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tr) Judge. 3