IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.Rev. (T) No. 88 of 2008 Decided on: 29.10.2010 State of H.P. and others …Petitioners. Versus Dharam Singh …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No For the petitioners : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. _______________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : The petitioner was engaged in the year 1995 and has completed 10 years with 240 days in each calender year till March, 2004. In these circumstances, the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal vide judgment dated 9.12.2005 had directed the respondent-State to consider the case of the petitioner for conferment of the work charge status in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyay Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1994(2) SLR 377. 2. Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the judgment in question dated 9.12.2005 stands implemented. Moreover, there is no error apparent on the face of the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? no -2- record. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge October 29, 2010 (K. Attri)