IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1754 of 2011 & connected matters. Decided on: April 4, 2011. 1. CWP No. 1754 of 2011 Rakesh Kumar. Versus State of H.P. & others. 2. CWP No. 1755 of 2011 Kalayan Chand. Versus State of H.P. & others. 3. CWP No. 1756 of 2011 Kehar Singh. Versus State of H.P. & others. 4. CWP No. 1757 of 2011 Surender Kumar. Versus State of H.P. & others. 5. CWP No. 1759 of 2011 Naresh Kumar. Versus State of H.P. & others. 6. CWP No. 1760 of 2011 Lekh Raj. Versus State of H.P. & others. 7. CWP No. 1761 of 2011 Chaman Lal. Versus State of H.P. & others. 8. CWP No. 1762 of 2011 Punna Ram. Versus State of H.P. & others. 9. CWP No. 1763 of 2011 Shyam Lal. 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. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, 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. According to the petitioners, the issue is covered in their favour by the judgment 2 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 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.