IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 2825 of 2011. Decided on: May 7, 2011. Ramesh Chand. Vrs. State of H.P. & ors. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioner: Mr. Rajender Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.Bawa, AG, with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. AG. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed mainly with the following prayer: “i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent to give work charged status/regularization to the petitioner as Driver with all consequential benefits as per ratio laid down in Mool Raj Upadhaya Vs. State of H.P., as and when he completed 10 years of service since he was engaged on 1.1.1992 and till 6.10.2006 he has served the respondent department as daily wager for about 16 years as daily waged Driver whereas, the petitioner was entitled for regularization on 1.1.2002 with all consequential benefits such as; seniority, arrears of pay, promotion etc. whereas, the respondent department has given regularization as Driver to the petitioner w.e.f. 6.10.2006.” 2. According to the petitioner, his case is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhaya vs. State of H.P., 1994 supp. (2) SCC 316. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. The petitioner submits that he would file appropriate representation furnishing all factual details before the competent authority within a period of one month from today. It is always open for him to do so. Thereafter, the matter will be duly considered by the first respondent/competent authority in the light of the judgment, referred to above and appropriate action in accordance with law will be taken within another four 2 months from the date of receipt of the representation alongwith a copy of this judgment and the copies of the judgment, referred to above by the petitioner. 4. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. May 7, 2011. ( Justice Sanjay Karol), (karan/vs) Judge.