IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP 4056 of 2009. Decided on June 29, 2010. Daulat Singh …. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others ….. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Appellant Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. R.P.Singh, Dy. AG. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral). Petitioner’s grievance in this case is against the denial of work charged status, on completion of 10 years service, as daily waged worker in the capacity of a mason. Admittedly, petitioner had been working as mason with the respondents since 1990, but he did not work for 240 man days, up to the year 1997. From 1998, he had been working continuously for 240 days. He became eligible for work charged status on completion of 10 years service, with 240 man days, during every calendar year, in 2008. His case was considered. He, however, did not fulfil minimum educational qualification prescribed in the Rules, known Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - as H.P. Department of Irrigation and Public Health, Workcharged Mason, (Class- III Non-Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1996. Minimum educational qualification is 8th standard pass, whereas the petitioner is 7th standard pass. Case was submitted to the government for relaxation of the condition of educational qualification, but the government has rejected the same, vide Annexure R-2. These facts are not in dispute and, therefore, reference to the reply need not be made. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 3. Learned counsel submits that the rules aforesaid, which prescribe qualification were notified in the year 1996, whereas the petitioner had been working with the respondents since 1990, per their own admission in the reply, though, that is a different matter that he did not work for 240 days during each calendar year prior to 1998. He says that since the petitioner was engaged prior to enforcement of Rules of 1996, Annexure P-4, the rules and the qualification prescribed in the rules are not applicable in this case. I find a good deal of merit in this submission. 4. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arjun Singh Rathore and others v. B.N.Chaturvedi and others, - 3 - (2007) 11 SCC 605, has held that rules, which are in operation at the time of occurrence of the vacancies, apply in case of promotion, and not the rules which are in vogue when the vacancy is sought to be filled. In the present case, petitioner having been appointed in the year 1990, when no rules were there, it can be said, on the analogy of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, that Rules of 1996, prescribing qualification, do not come in the way of his being conferred work charged status. So, the writ petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner shall be granted work charged status from the date he completed 10 years service, with 240 days, in each calendar year. June 29, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh), J.