IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Review Nos.164,165, 149, 150, 151, 156, 157, 158, 159, 162 and 163 of 2010. Decided on 4th January, 2011. 1. C.Review No.164 of 2010. HP State Forest Dev. Corporation. vs. Nand Bahadur & anr. 2. C.Review No. 165 of 2010. H.P. State Forest Dev. Corporation. Vs. Man Singh & anr. 3. C.Review No. 149 of 2010. H.P. State Forest Dev. Corporation. Vs. Ramesh Kumar & anr. 4. C.Review No. 150 of 2010. H.P. State Forest Dev. Corporation. Vs. Raju & anr. 5. C.Review No. 151 of 2010. H.P. State Forest Dev. Corporation. Vs. Kharak Singh & anr. 6. C.Review No. 156 of 2010. H.P. State Forest Dev. Corporation. Vs. Ram Kumar & anr. 7. C.Review No. 157 of 2010. H.P. State Forest Dev. Corporation. Vs. Vir Bahadur & anr. 8. C.Review No. 158 of 2010. H.P. State Forest Dev. Corporation. Vs. Dhan Bahadur & anr. 9. C.Review No. 159 of 2010. H.P. State Forest Dev. Corporation. Vs. Tikka Ram & anr. 10. C.Review No. 162 of 2010. H.P. State Forest Dev. Corporation. Vs. Prem Bahadur & anr. 11. C.Review No. 163 of 2010. H.P. State Forest Dev. Corporation. Vs. Ramesh & anr. 2 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the Petitioners : Mr. V.B. Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. J.R. Gazta, Advocate, for respondent No.1 in all the review petitions. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General, for respondent No.2 in all the review petitions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) These are the petitions for review at the instance of the respondents in the writ petitions. The prayer in the writ petitions was for regularization. According to the petitioners, the regularization was delayed since there was delay in getting the eligibility Certificates being Nepali citizens. It is seen that while disposing of the writ petitions, this Court had directed the respondents (review petitioners) to confer work charge status in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhaya vs. State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316. Admittedly that was not the issue before this Court. The case of the writ petitioners was to be considered only on the ground of delay in regularization. Therefore, these Review Petitions are disposed of clarifying that the review petitioners need only to consider the case of the writ petitioners/respondents for the purpose of regularization, in case the writ petitioners are 3 otherwise eligible in terms of the judgment, referred to in this judgment. 2. All the review petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 4th January, 2011, ( Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tr/cs) Judge.