IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 570 of 2009. Decided on: August 17, 2010. Mohammed Sazid …..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & ors. ……..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioner: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG for respondents No. 1 & 2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure P-2, order passed by the Tribunal. According to the petitioner he is entitled to be conferred with work charge status on completion of ten years of service in terms of the decision in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Versus State of H.P. 1994 supp. (2) SCC 316. The petitioner sought for a direction that the period he was kept out of service should also be counted for the purpose of service in terms of service of 10 years. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal when he was retrenched from service on 30.11.1998. The Industrial Tribunal, as per Annexure P-1 award, in Reference No. 98 of 2000 granted the following relief: “ In view of my findings on above issues, the retrenchment of the petitioner is held to be illegal and unjustified. The petitioner is entitled for his re-instatement on the same terms and conditions in which he was working earlier to his retrenchment except back wages. The respondents are 2 directed to re-engage the petitioner within a period of 60 days failing which the petitioner shall be entitled for full wages after the lapse of two months. The reference is answered accordingly.” 2. The award has become final. The award is dated 27.4.2005. It is clear from the award that what is to be paid is only the back wages. Therefore, for all other purposes including continuity in service and seniority, the petitioner is entitled to count the period he was kept out of service. But, it is seen from the award that even according to the petitioner, he was retrenched only on 30.11.1998. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to have the period counted from 30.11.1998 for the purpose of conferment of work charges status-regularization in terms of the policy prevailing at the relevant time. However, the Tribunal has declined to grant any relief on the ground that petitioner had not completed 240 days. Once an award is passed and award passed by the Industrial Tribunal having become final, the State Administrative Tribunal is not justified in going behind or beyond the award. 3. Therefore, Annexure P-2, order is set aside. The Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No. 1 & 2 to grant the benefit of conferment of work charged status-regularization in terms of the policy prevailing on the completion of 8-10 years after 30.11.1998. The needful as above, shall be done within a period of three months from the date of production of the copy of this judgment by the petitioner, in terms of the decision of this Court in Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. delivered in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 dated 28.7.2010. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. August 17, 2010. ( Justice Kuldip Singh) (karan/vs) Judge.