IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 11437/2008 Decided on:23.12.2010 _____________________________________________ Gopal Das. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. .…Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Kesav Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ansul Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he had completed ten years of continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year, however, his case has not been considered for conferment of work charge status, as per the principles 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 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 (2) SCC 316. Mr. Keshav Thakur has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure R-10. It is evident from the perusal of mandays’ chart (Annexure R-10) that the petitioner was engaged in the year 1992 and has completed ten years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year with effect from 1995 in the year 2004. 2. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status to the petitioner with all the consequential benefits, in accordance with the principles laid down in the above cited judgment, within a period of two months, after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner, if not already done. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 23.12.2010 *awasthi*