JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. The petitioner claims consequential benefits i.e. arrears from the date he was regularized on completion of 10 years of continued service. Reliance is placed on the decision of 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. The petitioner may file an appropriate representation furnishing all factual details before the second respondent within a period of one month from today. The second respondent/competent authority will look into the matter, verify the facts and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, in the light also of the decision referred to above within a period of another four months. 3. Yet another grievance of the petitioner is that he is entitled to the benefits of counting 50% of his daily waged service for the purpose of pension. That will depend on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh & others vs. Sarab Dayal. Therefore, it is made clear that subject to the outcome of the decision in the above said case, needful shall be done in the case of the petitioner within another two months. 4. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.