IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. No. 9900 of 2011. Decided on: 30th November, 2011. Rajesh and others. ….. Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …… Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 consider the cases of petitioners in light of ratio laid down in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P. for giving them work charged status/regularization with all consequential benefits such as; seniority and arrears of pay etc. as and when they completed 10 years of service with 240 days as a daily waged Beldar in view of the facts that the petitioners were engaged by the respondent department as daily waged Beldar in the year 1991, 1992 & 1993 and they completed their 10 years of service as daily waged Beldar with 240 days in each calendar year in the year 2001, 2002 & 2003 respectively but they have been given work charged status/regularization in 2008, which is after the delay of about 7, 6 & 5 years, whereas, number of similarly situated persons namely; Kashmir Singh, Prem Singh, Sher Singh, Nagu Ram, Chamel Singh, Amri Devi and 2 Nirmala Devi have been given work charged status/regularization on completion of their 10 years of service on daily waged basis.” 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case is 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 Deputy Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners will file appropriate representation furnishing all factual details before the competent authority, within a period of one month from today. It is always open for them to do so. Thereafter, the matter will be duly considered by the second respondent/competent authority 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 production of the representation(s) alongwith a copy of this judgment and the copy of the judgment, referred to above, by the petitioner. 4. The writ petition is disposed of, so also pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. November 30, 2011 (bhupender/kalpana) 3