IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.1805 of 2007. Date of decision: 11.03.2010. State of H.P. & Others ….Petitioners Versus Vinod Kumar ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioners: Mr.P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr.M.C. Verma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The Tribunal vide its judgment dated 18th May, 2007 has directed the respondents to grant work charged status to the respondent herein as work Inspector. The Tribunal holds:- “Even, from the reply filed by the respondents, it is admitted position of the case that initially the applicant has worked as daily wage beldar w.e.f. the year 1987 till 30.4.1991 and thereafter w.e.f. 1.5.1991, the applicant is continuously working on daily wages as Work Inspector till 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 date. The services of the applicant were brought on work charged establishment as Beldar in the year 1998, but the applicant submitted affidavit Annexure R-3, wherein, he has submitted that his seniority be made in the Trade of Work Inspector and not in any other category/trade. It is not in dispute that even after the date of 1.5.1991 applicant has completed ten years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year.” In view of the abovementioned settled position of Law and the facts and circumstances of the case, respondents are directed to give work charge status as work Inspector to the applicant immediately after the date, he has completed 10 years of continuous service with minimum 240 days in each calendar year with all consequential benefits within three months from the date of this order.” All that the order of the Tribunal directs is the grant of work charged status from the date the respondent completes ten years in service in accordance with law. Even before the Tribunal the stand of the State was that the respondent was working as daily waged Inspector w.e.f. 1.5.1991. The facts were undisputed and we do not find that the Tribunal has committed any illegality or has acted contrary to the law in issuing the direction that the respondent 3 be treated as work charged Work Inspector on his completion of ten years service as held by the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, (1994)2 SLR 377. We find no merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. All interim orders are vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of. (Dev Darshan Sud) Judge. March 11, 2010. (Kuldip Singh) (aks) Judge.