IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 12061 of 2008. Date of decision: 6.1.2011 Narender Singh. …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P & ors. .... Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Mr.A.K.Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Sh.Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl.A.G with Sh.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) The claim of the petitioner is that he should be granted work charge status in terms of the judgment rendered in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case. The stand of the State is that since the petitioner works in the Department of Agriculture, he is not entitled to the benefit of Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case. This Court in Gauri Dutt & ors. Vs. State of H.P Latest HJL 2008 (HP) 366 specifically answered this question. Question No.3 posed in the said judgment reads as follows:- “Whether the scheme, as approved by the Apex Court, in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case, is only applicable 2 to the employees of the Irrigation and Public Health Department and Public Works Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh or is applicable to all the daily rated employees working under the Government of H.P?” This question was answered in the following terms:- “17.The State of H.P. has also raised a plea that the scheme in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case is only applicable to the employees of the IPH and PWD departments of the State of H.P and is not applicable to other employees. We have already quoted para 6 of the affidavit of Mr.Subramanyam which clearly shows that the scheme, as presented by the State of H.P. to the Apex Court, was to be applicable to all the daily rated employees in all the departments in H.P. In view of the affidavit of Mr.Subramanyam, the State cannot now urge that this scheme is not applicable to other departments. In answer to the third question, it is held that the scheme is applicable to all daily waged employees working in any department of State of H.P.” It is thus apparent that the petitioner being an employee of the Agricultural Department is also entitled to the benefit. Even as per the reply filed by the State, the petitioner has worked for 240 days of service from 1993 onwards. Therefore, he completed 10 years of service on 31.12.2002 and is entitled to work charge status w.e.f. 1.1.2003. 3 Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant work charge status to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.2003. The respondents shall pay the monetary benefits due and payable to the petitioner alongwith 6% interest latest by 31.5.2011 failing which the State shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. January 6, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) (m) Judge