ORDER (M.R. Verma, J. (Retd.) Chairman) (Oral) - The applicant herein has claimed the relief that respondents may be directed to regularize his service as a Mate from the date since he had been working as a Mate and that all consequential benefits as admissible may be granted to him. 2.The respondents have opposed the claim of the applicant on the ground that he had rightly been given the work charged status as a Beldar w.e.f. due date. 3.I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent. 4.It is not in dispute that the applicant has been working as a Beldar with the respondents and was appointed as work charged Beldar w.e.f. 1.1.1994. It is also not in dispute that the applicant had worked as a daily rated Mate with the respondents during the period 1981 to 1985 for 4 years and 188 days and for 59 days during the year, 1986. During the total employment from 1981 till 1993, the applicant had worked for 8 years and 209 days as a Beldar on daily wages. 5.In view of the above admitted facts, the applicant is not entitled for the relief claimed for various reasons. Firstly, the applicant was appointed as a Beldar on work charged basis on 6.12.1994 w.e.f 1.1.1994. In case, he was aggrieved by this order and was entitle for appointment as a Mate, he ought to have assailed this order Annexure A-1 within one year of its coming into being. The applicant, however, acted according to this order and did not challenge it within the period of one year which was the prescribed period of limitation for challenging the same to institute the present original application which was filed on 4.1.1996, i.e., after expiry of more than two years of the issue of aforesaid appointment order Annexure A-1. Thus, the original application has not been filed within the period of limitation and there is no reason whatsoever pleaded in the original application or by filing a separate application for condonation of delay. Therefore, this original application is time barred. Thus, the original application has not been filed within the period of limitation and there is no reason whatsoever pleaded in the original application or by filing a separate application for condonation of delay. Therefore, this original application is time barred. 6.Secondly, during the requisite 10 years daily wage service for grant of work charged status, the applicant for the major part of such period had worked as a Beldar, therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Sohan Lal and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh, C.W.P. No. 939/1996 decided on 8.8.1996 the applicant could have been granted the work charged status only as a Beldar and not as a Mate. 7.Lastly, the applicant is seeking grant of work charged status w.e.f. from the date he was appointment (engaged) as a Mate which date according to the un-controverted reply of the applicant was somewhere in 1981 by that time the applicant had not even worked for one year as a daily wager. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyay and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1994(2) SLR 377, reaffirmed in State of H.P. & others v. Gehar Singh, 2007(1) Cur.L.J. (H.P.) S.C. 29 : Civil Appeal No. 1037/2007 decided on 27.2.2007 the applicant is not entitled for the relief claimed but had rightly been given the work charged status as a Beldar w.e.f. 1.1.1994 which is strictly in conformity with the decision in Mool Raj Upadhyay’s case (supra). 8.As a result, this original application merits dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs. M.R.B. ———————