CWP (T) No. 15742/2008 09.03.2011 Present: Mr. R. S. Gautam, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the respondents Petitioner has prayed for the following relief: “i) That the respondents may be directed to grant work charge status to the applicant after completing 10 years service i.e. w.e.f. January, 2001. ii) That the respondents may be directed to pay the arrears of the pay and allowances of the work charge post from due date i.e. January, 2001 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum till actual payment. iii) That the respondents may be directed to produce the entire record.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner orally prays that relief be moulded and petitioner be accorded benefit of the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316, as he has completed more than 240 days with effect from the year 1990 over a period of more than 10 years continuously. 3. It cannot be disputed that services of the petitioner were orally disengaged some time in the year 1990. Aggrieved of the same, petitioner approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 983/1991 titled as Suba Ram vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Said O.A. was decided in favour of the petitioner with the following observations:- “During the course of arguments the respondents have brought on record the mandays chart pertaining to the applicant which may be placed on record. On the basis of the mandays chart the applicant has completed more than 240 days in the preceding years when his services were orally terminated in September, 1990. Admittedly, no statutory notice as required under the law has been served upon the applicant. Only on the sole ground, the oral termination orders of the applicant are set-aside and as a consequence thereof, the respondents are directed to re-engage the applicant in the same place from where his services were orally terminated. In that event the applicant shall not be entitled for back wages, but the period between dis-engagement and re- engagement would be counted for his seniority.” Admittedly, the State has not assailed the same. 4. Order passed by the Tribunal is evidently clear as except for the back wages period between dis-engagement and re- engagement was directed to be counted for the purpose of seniority. Thus, petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the directions issued in Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra). Respondents are directed to take consequential action within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. 5. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. March 09, 2011 ( Sanjay Karol ), (rana) Judge.