IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.1128 of 2007. Date of decision: 19.03.2010. The State of H.P. & Others …Petitioners Versus Nand Lal …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioners: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr.P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr.N.K. Thakur, Advocate. Per Dev Darshan Sud,J.(Oral) The State is aggrieved by the order of the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal granting status of work charged Beldar to the respondent herein. The order is short and is reproduced hereunder:- “Though this original application the applicant has claimed the work charge status on completion of 10 years service. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was engaged as Beldar since 1985 and as per reply 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 filed by the respondents, he has not completed 10 years service with 240 days in each calendar year since then. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhayay vs. State of H.P. 1994(2) SLR 377 and sought work charge status on completion of 10 years of s ervice. Reply has been filed by the respondent/state and mandays chart is annexed with the reply as annexure-R-1. The applicant has completed 10 years continuous service with minimum 240 days in the year 2004. The learned counsel for the applicant states that although regularization is claimed, but he confines his claim for granting of work charge status. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the pleadings, the applicant is eligible to be given the work charge status w.e.f. 1.1.2005 on completion of 10 years of service with 240 days in each calendar year. Respondents are directed to give work charge status to the applicant w.e.f. 1.1.2005 with all consequential benefits. Original application is accordingly disposed of. (B.S. Chauhan) Member(A)” 3 The only reason which we found for reproducing the order is that the factual matrix of the case has not been disputed by the State before the Administrative Tribunal. In these circumstances, no new fact can be urged before this Court. All that the order of the Tribunal does is to enforce the decision of the Supreme Court 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). We also find from the pleadings that the respondent has been superannuated on 30.6.2007. In these circumstances, we hold the writ petition has become infructuous. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. This writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. All interim orders are vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of. (Dev Darshan Sud) Judge. March 19, 2010 (Kuldip Singh) (aks) Judge.