IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 783 of 2006 Date of decision: 14.09.2009 State of H.P. and another … Petitioners Versus Dhan Dev and another … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra and Mr. Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate Generals. For the respondents: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Per Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral): This writ petition filed by the State is directed against the order of the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal dated 4.4.2006, wherein a direction has been given to the State to grant work charged status to the applicant with effect from the date he completed ten years continue service i.e. 240 days in each calendar year. The main grievance of the State is that the decision of the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 316, is not applicable, since the applicant had not completed 240 days in any calendar year prior to 1.1.1993. From the man-days chart attached with the petition, it is clear that the applicant for the first time worked for 240 days in the year 1994 only. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 This question was considered by us in Gauri Dutt & Ors. Vs. State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366, and we specifically held that the Scheme approved by the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case does not deal with the future contingencies and it will cover only those employees who had at least worked for one calendar year prior to 31.12.1993. Therefore, the respondent is not covered under the Scheme. However, as held by us in Gauri Dutt’s case, the case of such persons like the respondent shall be covered by the later Scheme issued by the State on 6.5.2000 as modified from time to time. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the learned Tribunal is set aside. It is, however, clarified that the respondent shall be entitled to regularization in accordance with the later Scheme(s) framed by the State. No order as to costs. In view of the final disposal of the main writ petition, the interim order passed on 9.10.2006 in CMP No. 1255 of 2006 and confirmed on 26.2.2007, stands vacated. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge. ( V.K. Ahuja ), September 14, 2009 Judge (BSS) 3