IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 759 of 2006 Date of decision: 14.09.2009 State of H.P. and Ors. … Petitioners Versus Baksh … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra and Mr. Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate Generals. For the respondent: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral): This writ petition is directed against the order of the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal dated 22.3.2006, whereby the State has been directed to give work charged status to the applicant in the post in which he has worked for 240 days in each calendar year. According to the State, the case of the applicant was not covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 316. This contention cannot be accepted in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gauri Dutt & Ors. Vs. State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366, wherein we have clearly held that the judgment rendered in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case will cover those employees who had completed at least 240 days in a calendar 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 year prior to 1.1.1994. As per the man-days chart, the applicant has completed 240 days of service in each calendar year right from the year 1989 onwards. Therefore, he is entitled to be regularized on completion of ten years regular service after 1.1.1989. There is no error in the order of the learned Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. In view of the final disposal of the main writ petition, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. Interim directions also stand vacated. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge. ( V.K. Ahuja ), September 14, 2009 Judge (BSS) 3