CWP No. 1044 of 2007 11.3.2010 Present: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. P.M.Negi, Dy.Advocate General, for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 2.4.2007 passed by the Administrative Tribunal giving work-charged status to the respondents from the dates as detailed by the Tribunal in its judgement. The learned Tribunal on the facts and consideration of entire case law, namely Mool Raj Upadhyay vs. State of H.P. 1994 (2) S.L.R. 377, and State of H.P. and ors. Vs. Gehar Singh Civil Appeal No. 1037 of 2007 decided by the Apex Court on 27.2.2007 has granted the benefits of work-charged status as laid down therein. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the judgement cannot be sustained because it issues directions, which are contrary to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi (3) and others (2006) 4 SCC 1. We do not find that the ratio of this judgement is attracted to the facts of this case. There is no direction issued to the respondents to provide regular appointment but the judgement under challenge contains only directions for the implementation of the Supreme Court judgement for granting work charged status to the respondents. No case is made out that the petitioners are back door entry seeking regularization in service. We find and which fact is not disputed that the State is implementing the directions in Mool Raj Upadhyay’s case pursuant to which the State has framed scheme(s) not only for providing work charged status but also regularization to its employees. In this view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgement of the Tribunal. This writ petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs. All the pending miscellaneous applications are also disposed of. ( Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. March 11, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.