1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 531 of 2008. Decided on: 26.4.2011 Ripu Daman ....Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & another. ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner. : Mr. Pushpender Verma, Advocate vice Mr. K.B. Khujaria, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner was engaged as Fitter in the respondent-department in the year 1982. He worked continuously for nine years and has completed 240 days in a block of twelve calender months. However, he has not completed 240 days in the year 1993. The petitioner filed O.A. bearing No. 13/1998 before the learned erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal, seeking direction to the respondents to consider his case for regularization on the basis of Mool Raj Upadhaya's case. The O.A. was disposed of by the learned erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal on 6th September, 2005, by holding that since the petitioner had not completed 240 days in the year 1993, direction could not be issued to 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?. No. 2 the respondents to consider his case for regularization. However, the learned erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal had directed that the case of the petitioner be considered by the respondents for regularization after completion of 10 years of continuous service. 2. The petitioner was regularized on 24th March, 2007. However, the case of the petitioner was required to be considered for conferment of work-charge status on the basis of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 2735 of 2010, decided on 28th July, 2010. 3. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for conferment of work-charge status w.e.f. 2004 in view of the principles laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment cited herein above, within eight weeks from today after production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. He will be entitled to all the consequential benefits. No costs. April 26, 2011. (Rajiv Sharma) (hl) Judge