IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 8053 of 2010 along with CWPs No. 8054 and 8055 of 2010. Decided on: 16.12.2010. ________________________________________________ 1. Tule Ram versus State of H.P. and others. 2. Dil Ram versus State of H.P. and others. 3. Basant Ram versus State of H.P. and others. _________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner (s) : Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G ___________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral). According to the petitioners, the present matter is covered by a judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 4629 of 2009, titled Prakash Chand versus State of H.P. and another, decided on 14.12.2009, text whereof is extracted below:- “Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the writ petitions, they are taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by a common order at the admission stage with the consent of the parties. Mr. Vishwa Bhushan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are working as part time revenue Chowkidars. They have completed more than ten years of service and have also completed 240 days in each calendar year. They are seeking status of daily wagers on the basis of Notificiation issued on 27th February, 2004. We are of the considered view that since the petitioners fulfill all the norms prescribed vide 2 Notification dated 27th February, 2004, their cases are required to be considered by the State Government for granting them the daily wager status. Consequently, the respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for granting them the status of daily wagers after completion of ten years of service on the basis of Notification dated 27th February, 2004 within a period of ten weeks from today. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of on the basis of the observations and directions issued hereinabove.” 2. In view of the submissions of the petitioners that on facts the petitioners are also similarly situated, there will be direction to the 2nd respondent to look into the matter and take appropriate action, in accordance with law in the light of the judgment referred to above, after verifying the facts. The needful as above, shall be done within a period of three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. 3. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice. (Justice V.K. Sharma) Judge. December 16, 2010. (cr/virender)