CWP No. 2734 of 2009 10.5.2010 Present: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.K. Sharma, learned Additional A.G and Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy A.G. for respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his prayer in the petition only to the extent that the benefits given by the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh Ors. 1994(2) SLR. 377 may be granted to petitioners No.1 to 3, 6 to 9. The respondents No. 1 to 5 have filed the reply and have given the details of the engagement of each petitioners in the Forest Department. The para-1 of the reply indicates that petitioners No.1 to 3, 6 to 9 were engaged in the year 1993 or prior to that. It has not been denied by learned Addl. Advocate General that the case of the petitioners No.1 to 3, 6 to 9 is covered by Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra). In these circumstances, the respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioners No.1 to 3, 6 to 9 and give work charge status to them from due date in accordance with Mool Raj Upadhayay (supra) with all consequential benefits in eight weeks. Petition stands disposed of. (Kuldip Singh) Judge May 10, 2010 (sks)