IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.1806 of 2007. Date of decision: 12.03.2010. State of H.P. & Others …Petitioners Versus Shri Trilok Chand …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Mr.P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr.G.R. Palsra, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The State challenges the decision of the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A.(M) No.258 of 2007 on 10.08.2007. The only direction issued by the Tribunal is that the respondent be given work charged status of a Beldar w.e.f. 01.01.2001. The decision is based on the material supplied by the petitioner-State in its pleadings before the Tribunal in the nature of Annexure R-1 which shows that the respondent had completed ten years continuous service with minimum 240 working days in each calendar year on 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 31.12.2000. The Tribunal relies upon the decision in Mool Raj Upadhyaya and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, (1994)2 SLR 377, which was lateron reaffirmed in State of H.P. & Others Vs. Gehar Singh (Civil Appeal No.1037/2007, decided on 27.02.2007). Learned Additional Advocate General submits that this decision is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi (3) and Others, (2006)4 SCC 1. We cannot accept this contention. It is undisputed before us that pursuant to the decision in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case policy(s) for providing work charge status, regularization etc. were formulated by the State and which are uniformally applied. In this eventuality, it is not open to the State to question the decision of the Supreme Court which is being implemented by it. There is no pleading that the respondent has been appointed as a back door entry or seeks service benefits on the basis of not being qualified etc. We do not find any merit in this writ petition which is dismissed. No order as to costs. All interim orders are vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of. (Dev Darshan Sud) Judge. March 12, 2010 (Kuldip Singh) (aks) Judge.