IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 9911 of 2008. Decided on 14th December, 2010. _____________________________________________________ Het Ram. ….Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : None. For the respondents. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that the period between 1988 to 1992 should be regularized for the purpose of seniority. It has come in the reply filed by the respondent-State that the petitioner has not completed 240 days in any of the calendar years from 1988 to 1992. However, it is evident from Annexure R-1 that the petitioner has completed the requisite number of years with 240 days in each calander year w.e.f. 1993 to 2003. Since the petitioner has completed 10 years continuous service w.e.f. 1993 to 2003 and was engaged before 31.12.1993, his case was required to be considered for conferment of work charge status as per the law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. Upadhyaya Versus State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supplement (2) Supreme Court Cases 316. 2. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for conferment of work charge status immediately after completion of 10 years continuous service w.e.f. 1993, within a period of two months from today. The petitioner shall be informed by the respondents about this judgment within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. However, the plea of the petitioner to regularize the period w.e.f. 1988 to 1992 is not tenable and the same is rejected. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 14, 2010. (bhupender)