1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP Nos. 9422 of 2011-C & 9546 of 2011-E. Decided on: 16.11.2011 1. CWP No. 9422 of 2011-C Khem Singh Versus State of H.P. & others 2. CWP No. 9546 of 2011-E Chhanga Ram Versus State of H.P. & others Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner(s) : M/s D.K. Khanna and A.K. Gupta, Advocates for the respective petitioners. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioners claim work charge status/regularization with all consequential benefits from the date they completed 10 years of continued service. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316. 2 2. The learned Additional Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. Petitioners submit that they would file appropriate representation(s) 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. The second respondent/competent authority will look into the matter, verify the facts and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, in light also of the decision referred to above within a period of another four months. The petitioner concerned will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the judgment, referred to above and a copy of the writ petition(s), while submitting the representation(s). 3. With these observations, the writ petitions stand disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. November 16, 2011 (Justice Rajiv Sharma), (sck/hl) Judge.