1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10395 of 2011-J alongwith CWP Nos. 10396 of 2011-J & 10397 of 2011-J Date of decision: 1.12.2011 1. CWP No. 10395 of 2011-J Rattan Chand Versus State of H.P. & another 2. CWP No. 10396 of 2011-J Sansaroo Versus State of H.P. & another 3. CWP No. 10397 of 2011-J Rakesh Kumar Versus State of H.P. & another Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Gautam, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioners claim work charge status/regularization with all consequential benefits from the date they completed 10 years of continued service. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Mool Raj 2 Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316. 2. The learned Deputy Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. 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. The second respondent/competent authority will look into the matter, verify the facts and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, in light also of the decision, referred to above, within a period of another four months. The petitioner concerned will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the judgment, referred to above and a copy of the writ petition(s), while submitting the representation(s). 3. The writ petitions stand disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (Justice Rajiv Sharma), December 1, 2011. Judge (hl/priti)