IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1928 of 2008 along with connected matters mentioned below. Decided on: 18th May, 2010. (For title, please see below) Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. For the petitioner : See below. For the Respondents : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) 1. CWP No. 1928 of 2008. Pawan Kumar vs. H.P. Housing & Urban Dev. Authority & ors. For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. 2. CWP No. 2478 of 2008. Dhani Ram vs. State of H.P. & ors. For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG, for respondents No.1 and 2. 3. CWP No. 2966 of 2008. Daber Ram. vs. State of H.P. & ors. For the Petitioner: Mr. Devender Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG. 4. CWP No. 1569 of 2009. Prem Singh vs. State of H.P. & ors. For the Petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG. 2 5. CWP No. 1574 of 2009. Bishni Devi vs. State of H.P. & ors. For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG. 6. CWP No. 1579 of 2009. Bhag Singh & anr. vs. State of H.P. & ors. For the Petitioners: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG. 7. CWP No. 160 of 2009. Hukam Chand vs. State of H.P. & ors. For the Petitioner: M/s Bhuvnesh Sharma & Ramakant Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG. 8. CWP No. 1843 of 2009. Ramesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. & anr. For the Petitioner: M/s Bhuvnesh Sharma & Ramakant Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG. 9. CWP No. 2032 of 2009. Prem Singh vs. State of H.P. & ors. For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, vice counsel. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG. 10. CWP No. 2049 of 2009. Bhagto. vs. State of H.P. & ors. For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Rattan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG. 11. CWP No. 2059 of 2009. Dharamender Kumar. vs. State of H.P. & ors. For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG. 12. CWP No. 2396 of 2009. Byas Dev & ors. vs. State of H.P. & ors. 3 For the Petitioners: Mr. A.K.Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG. 13. CWP No. 2585 of 2009. Jagdish Chand & ors. vs. HIMUDA & ors. For the Petitioners: Mr. A.K.Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. 14. CWP No. 26 of 2009. Satish Kumar vs. State of H.P. & ors. For the Petitioner: M/S Bhuvnesh Sharma & Ramakant sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG. 15. CWP No. 2805 of 2009. Liaq Ram vs. State of H.P. & ors. For the Petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG. 16. CWP No. 3056 of 2009. Megh Singh & ors. vs. State of H.P. & anr. For the Petitioner: Mr. Inder Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG. 17. CWP No. 3095 of 2009. Man Singh & anr, vs. State of H.P. & anr. For the Petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG. 18. CWP No. 3258 of 2009. Ram Krishan vs. State of H.P. & ors. For the Petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG. 19. CWP No. 3382 of 2009. Balak Ram vs. State of H.P. & ors. For the Petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG. 20. CWP No. 3939 of 2009. Brij Lal vs. State of H.P. & ors. 4 For the Petitioner: Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG. 21. CWP No. 3975 of 2009. Jai Lal vs. State of H.P. & ors. For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L.Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG. 22. CWP No. 542 of 2009. Dhaneshwar Sharma vs. State of H.P. & ors. For the Petitioner: M/S Bhuvnesh Sharma & Ramakant Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG. 23. CWP No. 592 of 2009. Joginder Singh & ors. vs. State of H.P. & ors. For the Petitioners: Mr. A.K.Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG. 24. CWP No. 787 of 2009. Chunni Lal & ors. vs. State of H.P. & anr. For the Petitioners: Mr. Inder Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG. 25. CWP No. 766 of 2009. Hari Singh. vs. State of H.P. & ors. For the Petitioner: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.5. These are the cases pertaining to the claim made by the petitioners for work charge status. We find that the petitioners mainly rest their claim on the basis of two judgments; one is Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P., 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316 and the other is Gauri Dutt and others vs. State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366. As far 5 as the Mool Raj’s case is concerned, the same deals with the workmen on daily wages prior to 31.12.1993 and Gauri Dutt deals with those who were engaged thereafter. In some of the cases, there is also a prayer that the period they could not be engaged on account of their illness should also be taken into consideration in view of the policy that such periods of break covered by the medical certificate duly issued by the competent Doctor should be taken note of. 2. Learned Senior Addl. Advocate General points out that the State itself had framed a policy with regard to this aspect, taking note of the situation from time to time. It is also submitted that each case will have to be examined in the light of the factual background and in the light of the policy prevalent at the relevant time. Learned Senior Addl. Advocate General also points out that in the cases of workmen, who have claimed regularization from the anterior date than what is presently conceded by the State, in those cases also, the facts will have to be verified. It is further submitted that in any case the benefits may be limited to a notional basis when such regularization is made. 3. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and also the learned Senior Addl. Advocate General, we are of the view that each case requires examination by the competent authority in the light of the judgments, referred to above and in the light of the policy framed by the Government from time to time. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: 6 4. There will be a direction to the respondents concerned/competent authority to examine the case of each petitioner in the light of the decisions, referred to above and in the light of the policy framed by the State prevailing at the relevant time. In case any of the petitioners requests for opportunity of hearing or in case any of the petitioners makes a supplementary representation, the same shall also be considered while passing orders, as above. The appropriate orders, in accordance with law and in the light of the directions and observations as contained in this judgment, shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioners concerned. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 18th May, 2010 ( Justice Surjit Singh), (tr/karan) Judge. 7