IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 2878 of 2011 Decided on: 10.05.2011 Bishnu Devi ….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and ors. …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:- “(i) Directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.2003 as per policy of the State Govt. after having rendered 8 years of continuous service with the respondents and also grant the work charge status, with further directions to grant consequential benefits to the petitioner, while granting the benefit of regularization from the due date as has been done in the case of Sh. Som Dass vide Annexure P-2, P-3 and P-4 who has been extended the benefit of regularization with all consequential benefits from the due date in pursuance to the orders passed by the Learned erstwhile Tribunal and affirmed by this Hon’ble Court and also in the light of the judgment rendered in cases of Phool Maya, Suraj Bahadur and Gauri Dutt as mentioned in para-9 of the petition (Annexure P-6), (Annexure P-7) and (Annexure P-8).” 2 2. According to the petitioner, the issue is covered in her favour by the decisions of this Court in Phool Maya vs. State of H.P. (CWP(T) No. 10220 of 2008, decided on 17.3.2010) and Man Singh vs. State of H.P. & Ors. (CWP No. 1594 of 2008, decided on 27.7.2009). The learned Dy. Advocate General submits that the facts have to be verified. Petitioner submits that she will file an appropriate representation furnishing all factual details before the competent authority within a period of one month from today. It is always open for her to do so. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of, as follows:- It will be open to the petitioner to file an appropriate representation before the 2nd/3rd respondent along with a copy of the judgment, referred to above, within a period of two months from today, in which case the matter will be examined on facts and in light of the decision, referred to above, and appropriate action will be taken in the matter within another four months. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice May 10, 2011 ( Justice Sanjay Karol ), (c/rana) Judge.