IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T)No. 6922 of 2008 with CWP(T) Nos. 6918, 6919 and 6921 of 2008. Date of decision: 25.10.2010 1. CWP(T) No.6922 of 2008 Faquir Chand …... Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. and ors. …. Respondents For the petitioner : Ms. Kiran Dhiman, vice Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, counsel for respondent No.4. 2. CWP(T) No.6918 of 2008 Ishwar Dass …... Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. and ors. …. Respondents For the petitioner : Ms. Kiran Dhiman, vice Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, counsel for respondent No.4. 3. CWP(T) No.6919 of 2008 Gurdas Ram …... Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. and ors. …. Respondents For the petitioner : Ms. Kiran Dhiman, vice Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate 2 For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, counsel for respondent No.4. 4. CWP(T) No.6921 of 2008 Pritam Chand …... Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. and ors. …. Respondents For the petitioner : Ms. Kiran Dhiman, vice Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, counsel for respondent No.4. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioners who have been working as ‘Rakhas’ under the respective Panchayat Samittee are aggrieved since their services have not been regularized. It is submitted that there was recommendation by the Panchayat Samittee concerned to the Director of Panchayati Raj for grant of regular pay scale. According to the petitioners while granting pay scale they are to be treated as regular employees only. But it appears that second respondent has not taken a decision on the recommendation made by the concerned Panchayat Samittee. In view of the above circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the second respondent to take a decision on the recommendation made by the Panchayat Samittee with regard to the grant of regular pay scale and also take 3 request of the petitioner for consequential benefits, if not already taken. In case any of the petitioner requests for hearing, the same shall also be granted. The needful as above shall be done within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioners. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice. October 25, 2010 (Justice Kuldip Singh) (sks/grs) Judge.