IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPs No. 2442, 2443, 2444, 2445 and 2446 of 2011. Decided on 4th May, 2011. 1. CWP No. 2442 of 2011. Veena Devi and anr. Vs. State of H.P. & others. 2. CWP No. 2443 of 2011. Narinder Dutt Sharma & ors. Vs. State of H.P. & others. 3. CWP No. 2444 of 2011. Vimla Devi& ors. Vs. State of H.P. & others. 4. CWP No. 2445 of 2011. Shamsher Singh. Vs. State of H.P. & others. 5. CWP No. 2446 of 2011. Gult Ram. Vs. State of H.P. & others. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the Petitioners : Mr. Davinder Chauhan, 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 petitions are filed with the following prayers: “(a) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners on the analogy of as and when the petitioners complete their 8 years of services with 240 days in each calendar year and further more, the benefit accruing to the petitioners be granted in 2 the nature of arrear, pay fixation, pension and other retiral benefits.” 2. The petitioners claim work charge status/regularization/consequential benefits on completion of eight years of continuous service as daily waged worker. According to the petitioners, the issue is covered in their 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. 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. 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 within a period of two months from the date of the judgment of the Apex Court. 5. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 4th May, 2011 (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tr) Judge. 3