1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 6235 of 2011. Decided on: 5.8.2011 Kuldeep Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Milk Federation & another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. M.R. Verma, Advocate. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed mainly with the following prayers: “i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant work charge status to the petitioner w.e.f. 1-7-2002 the day when the petitioner has completed 8/10 years continuous service by issuing a writ of mandamus. ii) That the respondents may be directed to grant seniority and consequential benefits/arrears etc. from back date along with interest @ 9% per annum till realization.” 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case is squarely covered by the decision of the 2 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. The petitioner submits that he would file an 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 months from the date of production of the representation alongwith a copy of this judgment and a 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. August 5, 2011 (Justice V.K. Ahuja) (hl) Judge.