IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 13761 of 2008. Date of decision: 4.1.2011. Kamlesh Kumar & Ors. … Petitioners. Versus State of HP & Ors. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1. No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. AG. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) The grievance of the petitioners is that they have not been granted work charged status on completion of nine years service and they have been granted work charged status much later. 2. The stand of the respondents is that since adequate vacancies/posts were not there, the petitioners could not be appointed. In Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316 the Apex Court specifically held that a workman working in every department of the State would be granted work charged status on completion of ten years service if they had worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year. The mandays chart has been filed by the respondents and it shows that all the petitioners except petitioner No. 8-Bir Singh had worked for 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. more than 240 days in each calender year right from 1990 onwards. In the case of petitioner No.8 he had not completed 240 days in the year 1990, but from 1991 onwards has worked for more than 240 days every year. 3. In view of the factual situation and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P. and others and by this Court in Gauri Dutt and Ors. Vs. State of H.P, 366 LHLJ 2008 (1), the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that petitioner Nos.1 to 7 and 9 to 11 shall be granted work charged status w.e.f. 1.1.2000 since they had completed ten years service with 240 days in each calender year on 31.12.1999 and as far as petitioner No.8-Bir Singh is concerned, he shall be granted work charged status from 1.1.2001 with all consequential benefits. The monetary benefit(s) due and payable to the petitioners on this account along with interest @ 6% per annum shall be paid to them latest by 31st May, 2011, failing which the State shall be held liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. 4th January, 2011 (guleria)