IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.11859 of 2008. Decided on: 30.12.2010. Ashwani Kumar. ……….Petitioner. Versus H.P. State Urban Development Authority and others. ……….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner. : Mr. Lalit Kumar Sehgal, Advocate, vice Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. C.N.Singh, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that though he had completed 10 years of continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year, but his case for conferment of work charge status has not been considered in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya versus State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supplement (2) SCC 316. Moreover, Mr. Lalit Kumar Sehgal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client was engaged before 31.12.1993. Thus, the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment rendered in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case for conferment of work charge status. 2. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents-State to consider the case of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status in view of law laid down by their Lordships in the judgment cited hereinabove within a period of two months after production of certified copy of this 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?. judgment by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 30, 2010. (krt) 2