IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 11704/2008 Decided on:27.12.2010 _____________________________________________ Birbal. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate vice Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that though he had been working as Blacksmith, however, he has not been considered for regularization. Mr. D.P. Gupta has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure A-1. It is evident from the perusal of Annexure A-1 that the petitioner had been continuously working since 1990 and has worked continuously for ten years with 240 days in each calendar year. 2. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 conferment of work charge status, as per the law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhaya versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316 since he had been engaged prior to 31.12.1993. Needful be done within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. 3. In view of above directions, the petition is disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 27.12.2010 *awasthi*