1 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 795 of 2007. Date of decision 18.03.2010. State of Himachal Pradesh & others …Petitioners. Versus Sh. Balraju Ram …Respondent. 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. For the respondent None. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). We do not intend to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal for the reason that we find that it has been admitted by the petitioners herein that the respondent stands superannuated on 31.12.2006. The controversy, if any, therefore, would be only academic in nature. Moreover, we find that the Tribunal, on the admitted pleadings of the State, directed work charged status to be granted to the respondent herein. This order was passed in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mool Raj 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Upadhyay vs. State of H.P. 1994 (2) S.L.R. 377. It is undisputed that the State is implementing this decision uniformly. There is, thus, no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s) shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), J. March 18, 2010 (PC). (Kuldip Singh), J.