IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 11117 of 2008. Decided on: 24.12.2010. Surinder Kumar. ……….Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. ……….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner. : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. J.K.Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he has not been given benefit of the judgment rendered in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case. Petitioner was engaged in 1991. He had completed more than 10 years up to 2000 with 240 days in each calendar year. Since the petitioner has been engaged before 31.12.1993, his case was required to be considered for conferment of work charge status immediately after completion of 10 years of service instead of 2002 in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Mool Raj Upadhyaya versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1994, Supplement(2) SCC, 316. 2. Consequently, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status immediately after 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?. No. 2 completion of 10 years of service in view of the law laid down in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) December 24, 2010. Judge (krt)