1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 7974 of 2011 alongwith CWP Nos. 7975, 7976,7977, 7978, 7979, 7980, 7981, 7982, 7983, 7984, 7985, 7986, 7987, 7988, 7989, 7990 & 7991 of 2011. Decided on: 15th September, 2011. 1. CWP No. 7974 of 2011 Govind Ram Versus State of H.P. & anr. 2. CWP No. 7975 of 2011 Bansi Ram Versus State of H.P. & anr. 3. CWP No. 7976 of 2011 Suresh Dutt Sharma Versus State of H.P. & anr. 4. CWP No. 7977 of 2011 Babu Ram Versus State of H.P. & anr. 5. CWP No. 7978 of 2011 Lachi Ram Versus State of H.P. & anr. 6. CWP No. 7979 of 2011 Padam Singh Versus State of H.P. & anr. 7. CWP No. 7980 of 2011 Balam Ram Versus State of H.P. & anr. 8. CWP No. 7981 of 2011 Liaq Ram Versus State of H.P. & anr. 2 9. CWP No. 7982 of 2011 Durga Ram Versus State of H.P. & anr. 10. CWP No. 7983 of 2011 Kanshi Ram Versus State of H.P. & anr. 11. CWP No. 7984 of 2011 Manohar Lal Versus State of H.P. & anr. 12. CWP No. 7985 of 2011 Parkash Chand Versus State of H.P. & anr. 13. CWP No. 7986 of 2011 Lal Singh Versus State of H.P. & anr. 14. CWP No. 7987 of 2011 Ramesh Thakur Versus State of H.P. & anr. 15. CWP No. 7988 of 2011 Dhani Ram Versus State of H.P. & anr. 16. CWP No. 7989 of 2011 Parkash Chand Versus State of H.P. & anr. 17. CWP No. 7990 of 2011 Twaru Ram Versus State of H.P. & anr. 18. CWP No. 7991 of 2011 Gian Singh Versus State of H.P. & anr. 3 Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner(s) : M/s Naresh K. Gupta & Manoj Sharma, Advocates. 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. 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 4 accordance with law, in light also of the decision, referred to above, within a period of another four months. The petitioners will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the judgment, referred to above, while submitting the representation(s). 3. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 15th September, 2011. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), (sck/hl) Judge.