IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. No. 6708 of 2011. Decided on: 24th August, 2011. Tarun Kumar. ….. Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …… Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Inder Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “i) Issue writ of mandamus to the respondent-department directing them to consider the case of the petitioner and grant him work charged status w.e.f. 1st January 2000, when he had completed 10 years of regular daily waged service in accordance with guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P. & Gehar Singh Vs. State of H.P. & others (1994 Suppl. (2) SCC 316). ii) Issue writ of mandamus for direction to the respondent-department to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization with all consequential service benefits, with effect from the 2 day the petitioner completed ten years as daily wager on the post of Peon i.e. the year 2000”. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will 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 second 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 months from the date of production of the representation(s) alongwith a copy of this judgment and the copy of the judgment, referred to above, by the petitioner. 4. The writ petition is disposed of, so also pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. August 24, 2011 (bhupender/K. Attri) 3