IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.2052 /2009 Decided on:7.7.2009 Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority. …Petitioner. Versus Nagender Singh. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Bhalla, C.J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. For the petitioners : Mr. Suneel Mohan Goel, Advocate vice Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the Respondent : Nemo. The petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 7.12.2007 passed by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 372/2005. Mr. Suneel Mohan Goel has vehemently argued that the judgment passed by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal is not sustainable. He further contended that since the respondent had not completed ten years from the date of his initial appointment i.e. in the year 1994, the learned Tribunal had erred in law by directing the respondents to confer the work charge status on the respondent with effect from 1.1.2002. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 The learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal passed the judgment on 7.12.2007. The petitioners have assailed the judgment after a gap of more than one year and six months. This delay has not been explained at all by the petitioners. It was necessary for the petitioners to assail the judgment within a reasonable period of six months or at the most one year. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Suneel Mohan Goel that since the respondent had not completed ten years, he could not be given the work charge status. A bare perusal of policy dated 3.4.2000 placed on record reveals that the incumbent was required to complete only eight years of continuous service with minimum 240 days in each calendar year. The respondent was engaged on daily wage basis as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the year 1994. He has completed eight years of service in the year 2002. The respondent was regularized during the pendency of the original application before the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 24.9.2005. Since the respondent had completed eight years of service in the year 2002, there is no infirmity in the judgment of the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal directing the petitioners to give the respodnent work charge status with effect from 1.1.2002. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed on merit as well as on the ground of delay and laches. No costs. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. 7.7. 2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*