IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.O.P.C.No. 527 of 2011. Decided on: 7th December, 2011. 1. Sh. Atama Ram, S/o Sh. Durga Ram, R/o Village, Charidhar, P.O. Kanhoo, Tehsil Karsog, District, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Ram Dass, S/o Sh. Sagru Ram, R/o Village Dhingli, Post Officer, Kunhoo, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. …. Petitioners. -Versus- 1. H.K. Sarvata, presently working as Divisional Forest Officers, Forest Division Karsog, District, Mandi, H.P. …… Respondent/ Contemnor. 2. Sh. Megh Singh, S/o Sh. Inder , R/o Village, Saned, P.O. Kunhoo, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. …… Proforma Respondent. Contempt Petition Under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India for violation of the order dated 14.07.2010 passed by the Hon’ble Court in the above mentioned Civil Wirt Petition. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioners : Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy A.G. ----------------------------------------------------------- Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): Petitioners have approached this Court for the redressal of their grievances by way of C.W.P. No. 3056 of 2009. The same was decided by this Court on 14.07.2010 with a direction to the State to consider the case of petitioners as per the law laid down by 2 their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P. & others, 1994 Supp. (2) Supreme Court Cases 316. 2. In sequel to the directions issued by this Court on 14th July, 2010, the Divisional Forest Officer, Karsog, Forest Division, Karsog has passed the order on 30.03.2011 by holding that since petitioner No. 1, namely, Atma Ram has not completed 10 years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year prior to 31.12.1993, he could not be conferred with work charged status. The decision dated 30.03.2011 has been taken by the Divisional Forest Officer, Karsog, Forest Division Karsog only with respect to petitioner No. 1, Atma Ram. 3. We have gone through the order dated 30.03.2011. It is established from the same that petitioner No. 1, Atma Ram has started working continuously with 240 days in each calendar year w.e.f. 1995 onwards. Thus, his case was only to be considered as per the judgment rendered by this Court in Rakesh Kumar and others Vs. State of H.P. and others, C.W.P. No. 2735 of 2010 and not as per Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case. 4. According to Mr. C.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, the judgment rendered by this Court has not been implemented. We are of the considered view that the case of petitioner No. 1, Atma Ram could only be considered as per 3 Rakesh Kumar’s judgment and not as per Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case. 5. Mr. C.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of petitioner No. 2, Ram Dass has also been rejected on the analogy of petitioner No. 1, Atma Ram. 5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of petitioners for conferment of work charge status strictly as per the principles laid down in Rakesh Kumar and others Vs. State of H.P. and others, C.W.P. No. 2735 of 2010, within a period of ten weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the judgment referred to above, subject to its finality, by the petitioners. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 07, 2011. (bhupender)