IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3008 of 2011 along with connected matters. Date of Decision : 9th May, 2011 1. CWP No. 3008 of 2011 Man Chand Versus State of H.P.& ors. 2. CWP No. 3009 of 2011 Amar Chand Versus State of H.P.& ors. 3. CWP No. 3010 of 2011 Dola Ram Versus State of H.P.& ors. 4. CWP No. 3011 of 2011 Puran Chand Versus State of H.P.& ors. 5. CWP No. 3012 of 2011 Roshan Lal Versus State of H.P.& ors. 6. CWP No. 3013 of 2011 Lal Chand Versus State of H.P.& ors. 7. CWP No. 3014 of 2011 Dhani Ram Versus State of H.P.& ors. 8. CWP No. 3015 of 2011 Jagdish Chand Versus State of H.P.& ors. 9. CWP No. 3016 of 2011 Sada Nand Versus State of H.P.& ors. 10. CWP No. 3017 of 2011 Lal Chand Versus State of H.P.& ors. 11. CWP No. 3018 of 2011 Pyare Lal Versus State of H.P.& ors. 12. CWP No. 3019 of 2011 Budh Ram Versus State of H.P.& ors. 13. CWP No. 3020 of 2011 Fattu Ram Versus State of H.P.& ors. 14. CWP No. 3021 of 2011 Ishwar Singh Versus State of H.P.& ors. 15. CWP No. 3028 of 2011 Jhura Ram Versus State of H.P.& ors. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. 2 For the petitioners : Mr. K. B. Khajuria, Advocate For respondents : Mr. R. K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. J. K. Verma, Dy. A.G. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioners claim work charge status/ regularisation 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 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, while submitting the representation(s). 3. With these observations, the writ petitions stand disposed of, so also the pending application(s) if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 09, 2011 (rana/pankaj)