IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T)No. 9416 of 2008 (OA No. 1334/03) Date of decision: 10.12.2009. Himachal Ban Karamchari and Mazdoor Union and others …..Petitioners. Vs. State of H.P. & Anr …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioners : Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K.Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General & Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). The learned counsel for the petitioners has confined her submissions only for granting relief of work-charge status to petitioners with effect from January, 1994 with all consequential benefits. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners No.2 to 95 were engaged as Beldar by officers of respondents in January, 1984, all petitioners No.2 to 95 in January, 1994 had completed ten years of service with 240 days in each calendar year from the date they were engaged. It has been submitted that in view of Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316, the petitioners Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… No.2 to 95 are entitled to work-charge status after completion of ten years of service. 2. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has submitted that petitioners No.2 to 95 have already been regularized in January, 1998, therefore, such petitioners are not entitled to work- charge status from the date the petitioners No.2 to 95 are claiming work-charge status. 3. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. In Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors (supra), the Supreme Court has directed as follows: - “4. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we modify the said scheme by substituting paragraphs 1 to 4 of the same by the following paragraphs: (1) Daily-wage/muster-roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled, who have completed 10 years or more of continuous service with a minimum of . 240 days in a calendar year on 31/12/1993, shall be appointed as work- charged employees with effect from 1/1/1994 and shall be put in the time-scale of pay applicable to the corresponding lowest grade in the government; (2) daily-wage/muster-roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled, who have not completed 10 years of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31/12/1993, shall be appointed as work- charged employees with effect from the date they complete the said period of 10 years of service and on such appointment they shall be put in the time-scale of pay applicable to the lowest grade in the government; (3) daily-wage/muster-roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled who have not completed 10 years of service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31/12/1993, shall be paid daily wages at the rates …3… prescribed by the government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time for daily-wage employees falling in Class III and Class IV till they are appointed as work-charged employees in accordance with paragraph 2; (4) daily-wage/muster-roll workers shall be regularised in a phased manner on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability including physical fitness. On regularisation they shall be put in the minimum of the time-scale payable to the corresponding lowest grade applicable to the government and would be entitled to all other benefits available to regular government servants of the corresponding grade." 4. It has not been denied on behalf of the respondents that in January, 1994 the petitioners No.2 to 95 had completed ten years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year from the date they were engaged. The work-charge status and regularization of a workman are two different situations. The daily wage/ muster- roll workers who have not completed ten years continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31.12.1993 as per scheme modified by Supreme Court are entitled to appointment as work-charge employee with effect from the date they complete the said period of 10 years of service and are entitled to time scale of pay applicable to the corresponding lowest grade in the government. The regularization of the petitioners No.2 to 95 w.e.f. January, 1998 as submitted by learned Senior Additional Advocate General has nothing to do with their entitlement for work-charge status in January, 1984 as per para-4 (2) of Supreme Court judgement in Mool Raj Upadhyaya. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has not shown any scheme, rule or regulation which debars a workman for work-charge status on completion of ten years of continuous …4… service, as ordered by the Supreme Court, once the workman has been regularized after January, 1994. The work-charge status has some consequential benefits. There is no denial of the fact that work- charge status now can be given to the petitioners No.2 to 95 notionally w.e.f. January, 1994 as the petitioners No.2 to 95 have been regularized w.e.f. January, 1998, but such notional work-charge status w.e.f. January, 1994 shall be with all consequential benefits permissible in law. 5. No other point was urged. 6. The result of above discussion, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to give notionally work-charge status to petitioner No.2 to 95 w.e.f. January,1994 with all consequential benefits permissible in law and such decision be taken within a reasonable time. The petition stands disposed of with above directions. December 10, 2009 ( Kuldip Singh ), (sks) Judge.