IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 12532 of 2008 Date of decision: 24.02.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Dhanu Ram. ...Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petitioner, who joined the employment of the respondent-department as a daily rated mason, was vested with the status of work charged mason w.e.f. 26.12.2002. His grievance is that since he had completed the requisite service of ten years for grant of such status in December, 1998, he ought to have been vested with such status retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.1999 instead of 26.12.2002. In this regard reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Mool Raj Upadhyaya versus State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supplement (2) Supreme Court cases 316, wherein it has been held as under vide para 4(2): 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ...2... “4(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;” 2. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that once the petitioner has accepted the offer to work as work charged mason w.e.f. 26.12.2002, he is estopped from claiming such status retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.1999. However, a like contention has been repelled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of H.P. and others versus Gehar Singh, (2007) 12 Supreme Court Cases 43. Para 19 of the judgment, being relevant is extracted below: “19. Notwithstanding the fact that the services of the respondents have been regularised with effect from 1-1-2003 and they have joined their posts from that date without protest, they cannot, in our view, be denied the benefits as directed to be given to them by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court which had already accrued to them under the Scheme which was approved in Mool Raj Upadhyaya case.” 3. In view of the above, the petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of status of work charged mason w.e.f. 01.01.1999 instead of 26.12.2002 within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner. Needless to say that consequential benefits, if any, would follow. ...3... 4. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 24th February, 2011 (virender)