IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 11669 of 2008 Date of decision : September 20, 2011 Umesh Kumar and anr. …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and ors. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Petitioners, who are serving as work-charged helpers since 1977, pursuant to their order of appointment, Annexure PE, filed original application before erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal in the year 2004, seeking issuance of direction to the respondents to treat them as Fitter Mechanics, as according to them, they had been discharging duties of that post ever since their appointment. On abolition of H.P. Administrative Tribunal, matter came to this Court and so, it is being dealt with and disposed of by this Court. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 2. Respondents, in their reply, have stated that the petitioners were appointed as helpers and work of Fitter Mechanic has never been taken from them. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Advocate General and also gone through the record. 4. Appointment letter, Annexure PE, shows that the petitioners were appointed as work-charged helpers. There is nothing on record, supporting the claim of petitioners that work of Fitter Mechanic was being taken from them. 5. Learned counsel representing the petitioners has drawn attention of the Court to Annexure PA, muster-roll, pertaining to the period prior to their appointment, vide Annexure PE. Muster-roll pertains to period upto December, 1976. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioners were engaged as daily-waged workers in the capacity of Fitter Mechanics in the year 1976, per muster-roll, Annexure PA. 6. Petitioners are basing their case on their appointment as work-charged employees since 1977 and letter of appointment, Annexure PE, says that they were appointed only as helpers. Hence, petition is dismissed. September 20, 2011 (Surjit Singh), J (pankaj)