IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 2259 of 2007. Date of decision 11.3.2010. State of Himachal Pradesh & others ….Petitioners. Versus Punnu Ram and others ….Respondents. 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 petitioner Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. AG, with Mr. P.M.Negi, Dy. AG. For respondent No. 2 Mr. R.L.Chaudhary, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). The State is aggrieved by the order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal granting work charged status to the respondents as Chowkidars with effect from 1.1.1999 with all consequential benefits. The respondents petitioned the State Administrative Tribunal claiming benefit of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyay vs. State of H.P. ,1994 (2) S.L.R. 377, praying that his services be regularized etc. It was undisputed before the Tribunal that the respondent was working in a tribal area and, therefore, 240 days continuous service in each 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - year was not required for completing qualifying bench mark, but according to the government’s instructions, only 180 days per calendar year were required. This was the uncontroverted factual situation accepted by the parties. The petition was resisted by the State mainly on the ground that the respondents had been offered the post of Chowkidars and, therefore, the Original Application was infructuous and they could not be granted work charged status. The Tribunal rightly considering the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and others v. Gehar Singh (Civil Appeal No. 1037/2007, decided on 27.2.2007), held that offering regular employment was no bar to granting work charged status. The Original Application was accordingly disposed of with the directions: “As result of this, Original Application is allowed to the extent that respondents are directed to give appointment to the applicants as work charged White –washer w.e.f. 1.1.1999 with all consequential benefits within two months from the date of this order. The claim over and above, the claim hereinabove granted is dismissed…” A number of grounds have been raised by the State challenging the order passed by the Tribunal. On the undisputed facts before the - 3 - Tribunal, we hold that the order does not require any interference. The judgment has been passed keeping in view the decision and directions passed by the Supreme Court. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), J. March 11, 2010(PC). (Kuldip Singh), J.