CWP No.205 of 2007. 18.3.2010 Present: Mr. P.K.Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for the petitioners. Mr. Ranjan Sharma, counsel for the respondent. This writ petition is misconceived. The only direction issued by the Administrative Tribunal in its order dated 24.10.2006, is as follows:- “It would be pertinent to mention here that the cases which are covered by the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhaya’s case cannot be governed by a policy which have been subsequently framed by the State Government. Moreover, when such policy does 9not carry the approval of Hon’ble Apex Court and deprive the applicant of such benefits which have been accrued to the applicant by virtue of the judgement of Mool Raj Upadhaya’s case. The policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh cannot have the effect of over riding the judgement in Mool Raj Upadhaya’s case. The applicant in this original application, is therefore, entitled to the status of work charged employee from the date of completes the requisite term of service as daily wager. In view of this position, respondents are directed to give work charged status to the applicant as and when he has completed ten years of service with 240 days in each calendar year within a period of six months from the date of this order. The arrear as payable to the applicant by virtue of giving him the work charged status is to be paid to him within three months from the date of granting him work charged status. Original application stands finally disposed of in the light of above. No order as to cost.” The judgement of the Administrative Tribunal has been reproduced in detail, which otherwise is not required to be set out in this order. We find that the only direction which has been issued by the Administrative Tribunal is to grant work-charged status to the respondent in accordance with law after he has completed 240 days of continuous service in each year and has put in the requisite number of days. The Tribunal only follows the decision in Mool Raj Upadhyay vs. State of H.P. 1994 (2) S.L.R. 377. We also find from the writ petition that an admission has been made on affidavit of the deponent, who is Superintending Engineer, 7th Circle, HPPWD, Dalhousie that petitioner herein would be entitled for regularization w.e.f. 1.1.2004. If that be the case, we fail to comprehend as to why he has not been regularized in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyay’s case and the policies framed by the State Government subsequent thereto. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. All interim orders are vacated. All pending miscellaneous applications are also disposed of. We are also informed at the bar by the learned counsel for the respondent that petitioner has since been regularized on 17.3.2009. We failed to comprehend as to what is the grievance of the State. ( Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. March 18, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.