IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.310 of 2008. Date of decision:1.4.2010. State of H.P. & Others … … Petitioners Versus Vijay Kumar … … Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioners: Mr.R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Per Dev Darshan Sud,J. The State challenges the order passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.851 of 1996. 2. The case of the petitioners was based on Mool Raj Upadhyaya and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, (1994)2 SLR 377. The Tribunal holds that on the material placed on the record there was no dispute that the respondent had completed ten years of continuous service with minimum of 240 days in each calendar year on December 31, 1993. He, therefore, become entitled to work charged status w.e.f. Ist January, 1994. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 3. Accepting this contention, the Tribunal has passed the direction challenged. The man chart days as filed before the Tribunal also shows that the respondent has worked as Fitter since 1978 although he has been changed from one designation to the other. The contention of the State, that the judgment is neither in accordance with Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case nor of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi (3) and Others, (2006)4 SCC 1 case, is not borne out from the record. In-fact, pursuant to Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case the State has been framing policies for granting work charged status/regularization to its employees. The case having been adjudicated on facts on record and material before the Tribunal, we do not deem it proper to interfere in the findings of fact. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud) Judge. April 1, 2010. (Kuldip Singh) (aks) Judge.