1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 5632 of 2011. Decided on: 21.7.2011 Mast Ram ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another. …Respondents The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Diwan Singh Negi, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Department to consider the case of the petitioner in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhaya versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others (1994 Suppl. (2) SCC 318). b) Issue directions to the respondent department to grant work-charge status w.e.f. 1.04.1994 till the date of regularization to petitioner. ” 2 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 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 receipt of the representation 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 application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. July 21, 2011 (Justice V.K. Sharma) (Lsp/hl) Judge. 3