CWP No. 1419 of 2007 11.3.2010 Present: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Mr.P.M.Negi, Dy.Advocate General, for the petitioners. The respondent has been granted work-charge status by the Tribunal w.e.f. 1.1.2000. It is not disputed before us that respondent was engaged on 1.1.1988 and after eight years he was disengaged by the petitioner in the year 1996. Civil Writ Petition No. 81 of 1996 was filed by the petitioner in this court and vide interim order dated 11.1.1996 this court had directed the petitioner to re-engage the respondent in service and granted the benefit of seniority. On 9.7.1996 the writ petition was finally disposed of and directions were issued for re-engagement of the petitioner without any consequential benefits. This case is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in Mool Raj Upadhyay vs. State of H.P. 1994 (2) S.L.R. 377. We do not think that it is a case where we should exercise powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General that respondent has not put in ten years of service, is without merit in view of the decision of this court in the writ petition instituted by the respondent. There is thus no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. All the pending miscellaneous applications are also disposed of. ( Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. March 11, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.