1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 6153 of 2011 alongwith CWP Nos. 6384, 6385, 6386, 6387 & 6388 of 2011. Decided on: 16.8.2011 1. CWP No. 6153 of 2011. Jarboo Ram versus State of H.P. & others 2. CWP No. 6384 of 2011. Parma Ram versus State of H.P. & others 3. CWP No. 6385 of 2011. Het Ram versus State of H.P. & others 4. CWP No. 6386 of 2011. Dharam Dass versus State of H.P. & others 5. CWP No. 6387 of 2011. Durga Dass versus State of H.P. & others 6. CWP No. 6388 of 2011. Uttam Singh versus State of H.P. & others Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioners : Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General and 2 Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petitions are filed mainly with the following prayers: CWP No. 6153 of 2011. “A) Issue writ of mandamus for direction to the respondent-department to consider the case of the petitioner and grant him work charged status w.e.f. 1st January, 1995, when he had completed the 10 years of regular daily waged service in accordance guide lines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhya vs State of H.P. & Ghere Singh vs State of H.P. & others [1999 Suppl. (2) SCC 316].” CWP No. 6384 of 2011. “A) Issue writ of mandamus for direction to the respondent-department to consider the case of the petitioner and grant him work charged status w.e.f. 1st January, 2001, when he had completed the 10 years of regular daily waged service in accordance guide lines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhya vs State of H.P. & Ghere Singh vs State of H.P. & others [1999 Suppl. (2) SCC 316].” 3 CWP No. 6385 of 2011. “A) Issue writ of mandamus for direction to the respondent-department to consider the case of the petitioner and grant him work charged status w.e.f. 1st January, 1993, when he had completed the 10 years of regular daily waged service in accordance guide lines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhya vs State of H.P. & Ghere Singh vs State of H.P. & others [1999 Suppl. (2) SCC 316].” CWP No. 6386 of 2011. “A) Issue writ of mandamus for direction to the respondent-department to consider the case of the petitioner and grant him work charged status w.e.f. 1st January, 1994, when he had completed the 10 years of regular daily waged service in accordance guide lines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhya vs State of H.P. & Ghere Singh vs State of H.P. & others [1999 Suppl. (2) SCC 316].” CWP No. 6387 of 2011. “A) Issue writ of mandamus for direction to the respondent-department to consider the case of the petitioner and grant him work charged status w.e.f. 1st January, 1995, when he had completed the 10 years of regular daily waged service in accordance guide lines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhya vs State of H.P. & 4 Ghere Singh vs State of H.P. & others [1999 Suppl. (2) SCC 316].” CWP No. 6388 of 2011. “A) Issue writ of mandamus for direction to the respondent-department to consider the case of the petitioner and grant him work charged status w.e.f. 1st January, 2001, when he had completed the 10 years of regular daily waged service in accordance guide lines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhya vs State of H.P. & Ghere Singh vs State of H.P. & others [1999 Suppl. (2) SCC 316].” 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the cases are squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P., 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. 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. Thereafter, the matter will be duly considered by the second respondent/competent authority in the light of the judgment, referred to above and appropriate action in accordance with law will be taken within another four 5 months from the date of production of the representation(s) alongwith a copy of this judgment and the copy of the judgment, referred to above, by the petitioner concerned. 4. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. August 16, 2011 (Justice Sanjay Karol) ( hl) Judge.