IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1818 of 2007 Date of decision: 11.3.2010 State of H.P. & Others ……….Petitioners Versus Sucha Singh & Anr. ……….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. A.G. with Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional A.G. For respondent No. 1 : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) The State is aggrieved by the order of the Administrative Tribunal passed on 13th December, 2005 directing the petitioners to grant work charged status to the respondent No. 1 on completion of ten years continuous service. The respondent has claimed the benefit of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyay vs. State of H.P.and others which was affirmed in State of H.P. vs. Gehar Singh, Latest HLJ, 2007(SC) 363. The learned Tribunal while disposing of the appeal holds:- “ In view of the contents of mandays charge, Annexure R-4, annexed with the reply by the respondents the applicant admittedly completed 10 years of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on December 31, 2000. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 In “Mool Raj Upadhyay vrs. State of H.P. and others” (1994(2) SLR 377), the Apex Court mandated as under:- “(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 December 31, 1993, shall be appointed as work charged employees with effect from the date they completed 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.” In view of the above admitted factual position and the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there is no escape from the conclusion that applicant is entitled to be appointed as work charged employee w.e.f. 1.1.2001. As a result this original application is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant work charged status to the applicant w.e.f. 1.1.2001 with all the consequential benefits within three months from the date of passing of this order.” The facts being undisputed, we do not find that the Tribunal has committed any illegality or has acted beyond its jurisdiction in issuing the direction to the petitioners. In fact the Tribunal only implements the judgment of the Supreme Court. We find no merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed. There shall be no order as to the costs. All interim orders are vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of. (Dev Darshan Sud), J. (Kuldip Singh), J. March 11th, 2010 (vs)