IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 4421 of 2011. Decided on: 29.6.2011. __________________________________________________________ Yogidner Singh & another … Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioners : Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral). The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners from the year 2004 and to be more precise from 01.01.2004, when the petitioners became entitled for regularization on completion ten years uninterrupted service as daily waged worker as Beldar on 13.12.2003 with all consequential benefits including seniority and back wages and the same may kindly be ordered to be granted to the petitioners alongwith interest @ 12% perp annum from the due date to the date of actual appointment.” 2. The petitioners claim work charge status/ regularization/consequential benefits on completion of eight years of continuous service as daily waged workers. According to the petitioners, the issue is covered in their favour by the judgments of this Court rendered in CWP No. 19 of 2006, State of H.P. & Ors. Vs. Sant Ram, Annexure P-4, and CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others. 3. 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 representations 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. 2 4. It is for the respondents to examine the matter. 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. 5. The writ petition is disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice. (Justice V.K. Sharma) June 29, 2011. Judge. (cr/virender)