IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 16634 of 2008. Decided on 9th March, 2011. _____________________________________________________ Pritam Chand. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure R-C. Admittedly, the petitioner has worked for 10 years continuously and completed 240 days in a block of twelve calendar months. However, the petitioner instead of being conferred work charge status immediately after completion of 10 years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year, i.e., 1989, has been regularized in 1994. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya versus State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supplement (2) Supreme Court Cases 316. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. - 2 - 2. Consequently, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for conferment of work charge status immediately after completion of 10 years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year, i.e., w.e.f. 1989, as per Annexure P-C, with all consequential benefits, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge March 09, 2011. (bhupender) - 3 - `