IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 11085 of 2011-I Date of Decision 19th December, 2011 ________________________________________________________ 1. Tilak Ram son of Shri Khub Ram, resident of village Mlaha, P.O. Hara Boe, Tehsil Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi HP) 2. Krishan Lal, son of Sh. Nikna Ram, resident of village Bragta, P.O. Hara Boe, Tehsil Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi (HP) 3. Khem Raj, son of Sh. Devi Saran, resident of village Peliuni, P.O. Behli, Tehsil Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi (HP) (All the petitioners are presently working at Forest Range Kango, Forest Division Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi H.P.) ….Petitioners. Versus. 1. State of Himachal Pradesh through the Conservator of Forest, Mandi, District Mandi H.P. 2. The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi H.P. ….Respondents. Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ, in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directions. _______________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. ________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr. Diwan Singh Negi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass, Sood, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. __________________________________________________________________ 2 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. The learned Deputy 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 petitioners 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. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice. December 19, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge