IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 9637 of 2008 (OA No.2626/03 Date of decision: 25.6.2010 Jiwan Kumar …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, J(Oral) The learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his prayer in the petition that petitioner may be given work charge status as Bill Clerk in accordance with Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316 and as per Annexure R-1 mandays chart placed on record alongwith the reply of respondents No.1 to 5. The mandays chart Ex.R-1 indicates that the petitioner had completed more than 240 days in each calendar year as Bill Clerk from 1990 to 1998. It has been submitted that even in the year 1999 the petitioner had completed more than 240 days. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner to this effect, more particularly when as per documents placed on record the petitioner Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… vide office order dated 5.12.2002 Annexure A-3 has been given temporary status. The work charge status and temporary status are entirely two different placements. The petitioner is entitled to benefit of work charge status as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra). In these circumstances, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for work charge status in accordance with Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra) with all consequential service benefits permissible in law. The petition stands disposed, so also the pending application. June 25, 2010 ( Kuldip Singh ) (sks) Judge.