IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 15228 of 2008. Decided on: 14.06.2010. __________________________________________________________ Basaria Ram. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): Petitioner was engaged as Black Smith in the year 1988. He worked for 175 days in 1988. Thereafter he has worked for 86 days in the year 1989. He was disengaged in the year 1990. Thereafter he was re-engaged in the year 1991 and he had worked for 142.5 days in 1990. Thereafter he was disengaged in the year 1992. He was re- engaged in the year 1993. He has worked continuously with effect from 1993 till 2006 and had completed 240 days in each calendar year as per man-days chart. Since the petitioner was engaged before 31.12.1993, his case for conferment of work charge status was required to be considered as per Mool Raj Upadhayaya’s case. In other words, he 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - was to be given work charge status immediately after completion of ten years service, i.e. 2003. However, the respondents have regularised him with effect from the year 2007, whereas he was required to be given the work charge status in the year 2003 as per Mool Raj Upadhayaya’s case. 2. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status in the year 2003 as per Mool Raj Upadhayaya’s case. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. June 14, 2010. (sck).