IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 2254 of 2011 Decided on: April 27, 2011. Veena 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 V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- “ (i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued by directing the respondents to give work charge status/regularization with effect from due date i.e. 31.03.2000 (Annexure P-1) as per the policy of the State Govt. (ii) That the respondents may further be directed to give the all consequential benefits in the favour of petitioner w.e.f. 31.03.2000 till the date of realization with interest @ 18% per annum.” 2. According to the petitioner, her case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Phool Maya versus State of H.P. (CWP (T) No. 10220 of 2008) and Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316. The learned Deputy Advocate General submits that the factual position will have to be verified. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent/competent authority 2 to look into the matter and after verifying the facts, take appropriate action in accordance with law in light also of the judgments, referred to above, within four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment and copies of the judgments, referred to above, along with a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner. 3. All the pending application(s) if any, also stand disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (Justice V.K. Ahuja), April 27, 2011 Judge (pankaj)