IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 2470 of 2011. Decided on 4th May, 2011. Rajinder Sharma. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajinder Sharma, 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 prayers: “(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to give work charged status/regularization to the petitioner as driver with all consequential benefits as per ratio laid down in Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. as per the 8 years’ policy, as and when he completed 8 years of service with 240 days since he was engaged on 9.1.1995 and till 6.10.2006, he has served the respondent department for about 12 years as daily waged driver whereas, the petitioner was entitled for work charged status/regularization on 9.1.2002 with all consequential benefits such as; seniority, arrears of pay, promotion etc. whereas the respondent department has given work charged status/regularization as driver to the petitioner w.e.f. 6.10.2006. 2 (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to give the work charged status/regularization to the petitioner w.e.f. 9.1.2002 when he has completed 8 years of service, as has been done by the respondent department in the case of similarly situated persons. (iii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for pension and pensionary benefits in view of the fact that he was entitled to get work charged status/regularization on 9.1.2002.” 2. The petitioner claims work charge status/regularization/consequential benefits on completion of eight years of continuous service as daily waged worker. According to the petitioner, the issue is covered in his favour by the judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No.2735 of 2010 titled Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. and others. 3. Learned Deputy Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. 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. 4. It is for the respondents to examine the matter. We are informed that the State has filed an appeal against the above mentioned decision. Therefore, it is made clear that the implementation of the judgment referred to above would depend on the outcome of the decision of the Apex Court. The needful action, after verifying the facts will be taken 3 within a period of two months from the date of the judgment of the Apex Court. 5. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 4th May, 2011 (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tr) Judge.