IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 11397/2008 Decided on:23.12.2010 _____________________________________________ Imdad Ali. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ansul Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that his case has not been considered for work charge status despite the award made in his favour on 9.8.2000 (Annexure P-1). The operative portion of the award reads thus: “Keeping in view the aforesaid discussions and findings, I hold that petitioners No. 3,4,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,16,19 and 21 as per the claim petition are entitled to re- instatement in service with seniority in service for the purpose of regularization. However, it has not been proved by the petitioners that they were not gainfully employed during these years, therefore, they are not entitled to any back wages. As regards petitioners 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 No.1,2,5,8,14,15,17,18 and 20, they have not completed 240 days. Hence, they are not entitled for any re- instatement. The reference is answered accordingly. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Government for its publication.” 2. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status on the basis of award made vide Annexure P-1 dated 9.8.2000. Needful be done within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 23.12.2010 *awasthi*