IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1365/2011 Decided on:31.8.2011 _____________________________________________ Nand Lal and others. …Petitioners. Versus HPSEB and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioners : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Case of the petitioners No.1 to 15, in a nutshell, is that though they were engaged on daily wage basis in the respondent-Board with effect from 2.4.1982, 2.8.1982, 2.2.1985, 25.12.1986, October, 1982, 25.11.1986, 25.11.1982, 25.6.1986, 25.6.1986, 25.9.1986, 25.11.1982, 25.4.1982, 25.8.1986, April, 1986 and 25.7.1986, respectively, however, petitioners No. 1,2,5,7,11,12 have been conferred work charge status with effect from 1.1.1994, petitioners No.3 with 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 effect from 1.1.1995 and petitioners No.4,6, 8, 9,10, 13, 14 and 15 with effect from 1.1.1996. 2. According to Mr. A.K. Gupta his clients were required to be conferred with work charge status immediately after completion of ten years continuous service as per the law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhaya versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316. According to him, his clients had completed ten years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year. 3. According to Ms. Anjula Khajuria, petitioners had not completed ten years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year. Mr. A.K. Gupta has argued that the case of his clients is covered by the judgment rendered by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in Jagmohan Singh and another versus H.P.S.E.B. decided on 7.4.2006. However, fact of the matter is that petitioners have not made any representation to the Secretary of the respondent-Board seeking conferment of work charge status after completion of ten years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year. 3 4. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of and in the interest of justice petitioners are permitted to make representation(s) to the Secretary of the respondent-Board within a period of three weeks from today. The petitioners shall substantiate before the Secretary of the respondent-Board that they had completed ten years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year. The representation(s) to be made by the petitioners shall be decided by the Secretary of the respondent-Board by passing a speaking order by taking all the pleas and grounds raised by the petitioners within three months after the receipt of the representation(s) alongwith certified copy of this judgment. In the eventuality of the representation(s) of the petitioners being accepted by the Secretary of the respondent-Board, they shall only be entitled to notional benefits. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 31.8.2011 *awasthi*