IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1745 of 2011 & connected matters. Decided on: April 4, 2011. 1. CWP No. 1745 of 2011 Subhash Chand. Versus State of H.P. & anr. 2. CWP No. 1746 of 2011 Dinesh Kumar. Versus State of H.P. & anr. 3. CWP No. 1747 of 2011 Surender Singh. Versus State of H.P. & anr. 4. CWP No. 1752 of 2011 Sukh Dev. Versus State of H.P. & anr. 5. CWP No. 1753 of 2011 Kalu Ram. Versus State of H.P. & anr. 6. CWP No. 1758 of 2011 Surender Kumar. Versus State of H.P. & anr. 7. CWP No. 1764 of 2011 Jai Singh. Versus State of H.P. & anr. 8. CWP No. 1765 of 2011 Karam Singh. Versus State of H.P. & anr. 9. CWP No. 1766 of 2011 Shesh Ram. Versus State of H.P. & anr. 10. CWP No. 1768 of 2011 Krishan Kumar. Versus State of H.P. & anr. 11. CWP No. 1769 of 2011 Ram Lal. Versus State of H.P. & anr. 12. CWP No. 1770 of 2011 Rajmal. Versus State of H.P. & anr. 13. CWP No. 1771 of 2011 Govind Ram. Versus State of H.P. & anr. 14. CWP No. 1784 of 2011 Gulab Singh. Versus State of H.P. & anr. 2 15. CWP No. 1785 of 2011 Dharam Singh. Versus State of H.P. & anr. 16. CWP No. 1786 of 2011 Charan Dass. Versus State of H.P. & anr. 17. CWP No. 1787 of 2011 Kuntu Ram. Versus State of H.P. & anr. 18. CWP No. 1788 of 2011 Baldev Kumar. Versus State of H.P. & anr. 19. CWP No. 1789 of 2011 Om Prakash. Versus State of H.P. & anr. 20. CWP No. 1790 of 2011 Gian Chand. Versus State of H.P. & anr. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioners: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, AG with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl.AG and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. AG. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioners in all these cases claim work charge status on completion of eight years of continuous service as daily waged worker (s). According to the petitioners, the issue is covered in their favour by the judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. and others. It is for the respondents to examine the matter. The petitioners submit that they would file appropriate representation(s) furnishing all factual details before the competent authority within a period of one month from today. It is always open for them to do so. As and when the same is made, the second respondent/competent authority will look into the matter, verify the facts in each case and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with 3 a copy of the writ petition(s) by the petitioner concerned before the second respondent. 2. 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. 3. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. April 4, 2011. ( Justice Sanjay Karol ), (karan/vs) Judge.