IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1096 of 2006 Date of decision: 23.11.2009 State of H.P. & Ors. …. Petitioners Versus Suresh Dutt … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Rajesh Manddhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral): The State by means of this petition has challenged the order dated 2.3.2006, passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, whereby the State has been directed to give work charged status to the respondent after completion of ten years of service with 240 days in each calendar year in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1994(2) SLR 377. This Court has considered this matter in detail in Gauri Dutt & Ors. Vs. State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2008(HP) 366, and has held that the scheme as approved in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case applies only to those employees who had either completed ten years 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 of continuous service as on 31.12.1993 or the employees who had rendered at least one or more year of service prior to 31.12.1993. While considering the scheme as approved in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case, this Court held as follows:- “The scheme does not deal with future contingencies. We cannot read into the judgment of the Supreme Court or in the scheme as approved by the Supreme Court anything more than what is stated in it. As per our reading of the scheme the same only applies to employees who had either completed 10 years of continuous service as on 31.12.1993 or the employees who had rendered one or more year of service, but not completed 10 years of service as on 31.12.1993. This scheme does not apply to those employees who had not completed even one year of service as on 31.12.1993 or who were employed thereafter.” It is obvious that to take the benefit of the scheme approved in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case, the employees should have completed at least 240 days of service prior to 31.12.1993. Admittedly, in this case, the employee has not completed this period of service prior to 31.12.1993. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is illegal and incorrect and accordingly set aside. However, we further direct that grant of work charged status/regularization of the services of the respondent shall be governed by the subsequent schemes framed by the State Government, in this regard. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge ( V.K. Ahuja ), November 23, 2009 Judge (BSS) 3