CWP(T) No. 505/2008 22/4/2010 Present: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Sharma, learned Additional A.G with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy A.G. for respondents. The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged in the year 1985 and till 31st December, 1992, he was not allowed to complete 240 days in each calendar year but the petitioner had completed 240 days service in each calendar year since January, 1993, and completed 10 years of service and is entitled to work charge status as per Mool Raj Upadhyay vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh Ors. 1994(2) SLR. 377. This assertion of the petitioner has not been denied in the reply, rather plea has been taken that the service of the petitioner has been regularized in pursuance of the order dated 04.03.2003 of the erstwhile Tribunal w.e.f 25.04.2005. The work charge status and regularization are entirely different things. The petitioner is seeking work charge status as per Mool Raj Upadhyay ‘supra’. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner had completed 240 days in each calendar year and had completed 10 years of service w.e.f 01.01.1993. In these circumstances, the case of the petitioner is covered by Mool Raj Upadhayay ‘supra’. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and give him work charge status in accordance with Mool Raj Upadhayay ‘supra’ with all consequential benefits within a period of eight weeks from today. The petition stands disposed of. (Kuldip Singh) Judge April 22 , 2010 (Bhatt)