IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP Nos. 8578, 8579, 8580, 8586 and 8598 of 2011. Decided on: 28.09.2011. 1. CWP No. 8578 of 2011 Dutt Ram Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 2. CWP No. 8579 of 2011 Janak Singh Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 3. CWP No. 8580 of 2011 Hari Singh Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 4. CWP No. 8586 of 2011 Tilak Raj Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 5. CWP No. 8598 of 2011 Roshan Lal Vs. State of H.P. & ors. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, C. J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. For the petitioners : Mr. Rakesh K. Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioners claim work charge status/regularization with all consequential benefits from the date they completed 10 years of continued service. Reliance is placed on the decision of - 2 - 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. The writ petitions stand disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice September 28, 2011. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), (sck/pankaj) Judge.