IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 10912 of 2008. Decided on: 24.2.2011. Ranbir Singh & others ……….Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & others …….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioners. : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that though they had been working continuously for 10 years with 240 days in each calender year, but they have not been conferred work charge status as per the Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case. 2. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to the mandays chart at page No. 8 of the paper book. A bare perusal of the same shows that the petitioners had completed 10 years of continuous service with 240 days in each calender year before cut off date i.e. on 31.12.2003. 3. In view of the above, the case of the petitioners is required to be considered by the respondents strictly as per the law laid 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?. NO down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya versus State of H.P. & others, 1994 Supplement(2) SCC 316. 4. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status immediately after completion of 10 years of continuous service with 240 days in each calender year. The needful shall be done within a period of 12 weeks after production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. February 24, 2011 (hl) (Rajiv Sharma) Judge