IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 3445 of 2011 and CWPs No. 3446, 3447 and 3448 of 2011 Date of decision: 27.05.2011 ________________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 3445 of 2011 Ramesh. ...Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. & others. ...Respondents. 2. CWP No. 3446 of 2011 Malo. ...Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. & others. ...Respondents. 3. CWP No. 3447 of 2011 Ishru. ...Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. & others. ...Respondents. 4. CWP No. 3448 of 2011 Ram Dayal. ...Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. & others. ...Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph,C.J. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma,J. ________________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner(s): Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, AG with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. AG with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. AG. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitions are filed with the common prayers, one set of which reads as under: “1. That appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued and the respondent department may be directed to regularize/confer work charge status to the petitioner after completion of 8 years of daily wage service with all consequential benefits in view of the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court.” 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 Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. Petitioners submit that they would file appropriate representations 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 second respondent 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 receipt of the representation alongwith a copy of this judgment and the copy of the judgment, referred to above by the petitioners concerned. 4. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice (Justice V.K. Sharma) Judge 27th May, 2011 (jai/virender)