Ramdyal v. State of Himachal Pradesh through Principal Secretary

________________________________________________________ Coram Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rupinder Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. A.G., for the respondents. __________________________________________ _________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.(oral): The petitioner claim the benefit of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P., 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316 and claim work charge status on completion of ten years of daily waged service with 240 days per year. In any case, as rightly pointed out by the learned Deputy Advocate General, there cannot be work charge status prior to

1.1.1994. The claim of regularization will be considered only subject to the availability of vacancies. All these aspects, the 2 petitioners pray, they may be permitted to bring to the notice of the third respondent. It is open to them to do so. In the event of the petitioners filing appropriate representation(s) furnishing their service particulars, the matter will be considered and appropriate action will be taken in accordance with law within four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment alongwith the representation(s) by the petitioner concerned before the third respondent.

#2. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice November 30, 2012 ( Kalpana) (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge 2