IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 11833/2008 Decided on:27.12.2010 _____________________________________________ Mohan Lal. …Petitioner. Versus The Municipal Corporation and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. R.D. Kaundal, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he was engaged in the year 1994 and has completed ten years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year. However, petitioner has been regularized with effect from 1.1.2005. Since the petitioner has been appointed after 31.12.1993, he cannot be conferred work charge status as per Mool Raj Upadhaya versus The State of Himachal 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 Pradesh and others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316. However, the petitioner is given an opportunity to make a representation to the competent authority for the redressal of his grievance seeking his regularization from the anterior date. 2. In the light of above, the petition is disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 27.12.2010 *awasthi*