IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 4483 of 2011 with CWPs No. 4721, 4722, 4723 and 4735 of 2011. Decided on: 8.7.2011. __________________________________________________________ 1. Sher Singh Vs. State of HP and another. 2. Geeta Devi. Vs. State of HP and another. 3. Sadh Ram Vs. State of HP and another. 4. Drompti Devi Vs. State of HP and another. 5. Rup Lal Vs. State of HP and another. _________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. for the respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral). The petitions are filed on similar set of prayers, one set of which is as under: “That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and the respondent-department may be directed to extend the benefit of work charge status to the petitioner on the completion of 8 years of daily wage service or in the alternative the respondents may be directed to grant the work charge status on the completion of 10 years in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with consequential benefits. 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. Petitioners submit that they would file appropriate representations 2 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/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 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) July 8, 2011. Judge. (cr/virender)