IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 11427 of 2011-C Date of Decision 27th December, 2011 ________________________________________________________ 1. Tara Chand, son of late Sh. Gokal Ram, R/o village Ropru, P.O. Koyal (Koil), Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu H.P. presently working as Chowkidar on regular basis in Range Office Arsu at Nirmand (Forest Department), District Kullu H.P. 2. Nar Singh, son of late Shri Moti Ram, resident of village Chambu, P.O. Jodohali, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu H.P. presently working as Forest worker on regular basis, Range Office Arsu at Nirmand, District Kullu H.P. 3. Budhi Singh, son of late Sh. Tula Ram, resident of V.P.O. Arsu, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu H.P., presently working as Peon in Forest Department, Range Office Arsu at Nirmand District Kullu H.P. ….Petitioners. Versus. 1. State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Forests) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-171 002. 2. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh, Talland, Shimla-2 3. Divisional Forest Officer, Anni Forest Division at Luhri, District Kullu H.P. ….Respondents. Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. _______________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. ________________________________________________________________ 2 For the Petitioners: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass, Sood, Addl. Advocate General. __________________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (oral) The petitioners claim work charge status on completion of eight years of continuous service as daily waged debldars. 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 as Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 28.7.2010. 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. The petitioners will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition before the third respondent/competent authority. 2. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice. December 27, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge