1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 6714 of 2011 alongwith CWP Nos. 6715, 6716 & 6723 of 2011. Decided on: 29.8.2011 1. CWP No. 6714 of 2011. Jai Chand Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 2. CWP No. 6715 of 2011. Chaman Lal Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 3. CWP No. 6716 of 2011. Karam Dass Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 4. CWP No. 6723 of 2011. Shish Ram Vs. State of H.P. & ors. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioner(s): Mr. Chandranarayana Singh, Advocate in CWP Nos. 6714, 6715 & 6716 of 2011. Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate in CWP No. 6723 of 2011. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General 2 Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petitions are filed mainly with the following prayers: CWP No. 6714 of 2011. “i) Issue writ of mandamus for direction to the respondent-department to consider the case of the petitioner and grant him work charged status w.e.f. 1st January 2000, when he had completed the 10 years of regular daily waged service in accordance guide lines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhya vs State of H.P. & Ghere Singh vs. State of H.P. & others (1994 Suppl. (2) SCC 316). ii) Issue writ of mandamus for direction to the respondent-department to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization with all consequential service benefits, with effect from the day the petitioner completed ten years of service as daily wager on the post of peon i.e. the year 2001.” CWP No. 6715 of 2011. “i) Issue writ of mandamus for direction to the respondent-department to consider the case of the petitioner and grant him work charged status w.e.f. 1st January 1999, when he had completed the 10 years of regular daily waged service in accordance guide lines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhya vs State of H.P. & Ghere Singh vs. State of H.P. & others (1994 Suppl. (2) SCC 316). 3 ii) Issue writ of mandamus for direction to the respondent-department to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization with all consequential service benefits, with effect from the day the petitioner completed ten years of service as daily wager on the post of Mali i.e. the year 1999.” CWP No. 6716 of 2011. “i) Issue writ of mandamus for direction to the respondent-department to consider the case of the petitioner and grant him work charged status w.e.f. 1st January 2002, when he had completed the 10 years of regular daily waged service in accordance guide lines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhya vs State of H.P. & Ghere Singh vs. State of H.P. & others (1994 Suppl. (2) SCC 316). ii) Issue writ of mandamus for direction to the respondent-department to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization with all consequential service benefits, with effect from the day the petitioner completed ten years of service as daily wager on the post of forest worker i.e. the year 2002.” CWP No. 6723 of 2011. “i) That the respondents be directed to grant work charge status to the petitioner after completion of 10 years service I.e. w.e.f. 1-1-1988 to 1-1-1998 and to pay him arrears of wages and consequential benefits.” 4 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the cases are squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P., 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. The petitioners submits 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. Thereafter, the matter will be duly considered by the respondents/competent authority in the light of the judgment, referred to above and appropriate action in accordance with law will be taken within another four months from the date of production of the representation(s) alongwith a copy of this judgment and a copy of the judgment, referred to above, by the petitioner(s). 4. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. August 29, 2011 (Justice Sanjay Karol) (hl/priti) Judge.