IN THE HIGH COURTACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1092 of 2006 Date of decision:30.3.2010 State of H.P. and others ...Petitioner. Versus Prem Chand ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B,Misra, Judge. For the Petitioner: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. Ankush Sood, Addl. A.G. For the Respondent: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.(Oral) State is aggrieved by the order, dated 2nd March, 2006 passed by the tribunal in O.A. No.3036 of 2004. The tribunal, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhaya versus State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316, directed the State to give work charge status to the applicant w.e.f. 1.1.2004. The case of the State is that the decision in Gauri Dutt & Others versus State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2008(HP) 366, applies in this case. Therefore, apparently, there is a dispute as to the factual position. In any case, the applicant is entitled to be covered either by the Gauri Dutt’s case or Mool Raj Upadhaya’s case (supra). The matter has to be necessarily examined by the second respondent. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to look into the matter with notice to the respondent (applicant) and to take appropriate action in accordance with law, without discriminating the respondent (applicant) in the light of the decision applicable to the respondent (applicant). The benefits, if any, flowing out of such consideration, shall be disbursed to the respondent (applicant) within two months. The writ petition stands disposed of. Copy Dasti. . (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice March 30, 2010(K/s) ( Justice R.B. Misra ), Judge