1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 7080 of 2011 Decided on: 2nd September, 2011. Sukh Dev ......Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ......Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Varun Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed mainly with the following prayers: “i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued against the respondents to give/allow work charge status to the petitioner from 1.1.2000 on completion of his ten years of continuous service as daily waged beldar as on 31.12.1999 as per decision of the Apex Court in a case titled as Mool Raj Upadhayay versus State of H.P. & others after taking 2 into account the medical certificate of the doctor for the period from 13.7.1993 to 31.7.1993. ii) That the writ of mandamus may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from 2003 as has been done in the case of other daily wagers who were junior to the petitioner.” 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 Additional Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. The petitioner submits that he would file an appropriate representation furnishing all factual details before the competent authority, within a period of one month from today. It is always open for him 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 alongwith a copy of this judgment and a copy of the judgment, referred to above, by the petitioner before the second respondent/competent authority. 3 4. The writ petition is disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 2nd September, 2011. (Justice Surinder Singh), (cm/hl) Judge.