IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 10627 of 2008. Decided on 21st December, 2010. _____________________________________________________ Rustam and Others. …Petitioners. -Versus- State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Since as per the reply filed by the respondents, the petitioners were engaged before 31.12.1993, their cases were required to be considered for conferment of work charge status in view of the law laid down in Mool Raj Upadhyaya versus State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supplement (2) Supreme Court Cases 316 and State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Gehar Singh, (2007) 12 SCC 43, 2. Consequently, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of petitioners for conferment of work charge status immediately after completion of ten years’ continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year as per as per the dicta of Mool Raj Upadhyay’s case Gehar Singh’s case with all consequential benefits, within a period of two months from the date of 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioners. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 21, 2010. (bhupender) - 3 - `