JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral)-The State has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the State Administrative Tribunal directing that the respondent be granted work charged status as Fitter, Grade I, from the date when he started discharging duties as Pipe Lineman. The operative part of the Order reads: “In view of the above, this original application is allowed and Annexure A-2 dated 28.10.1995 is quashed and set aside to the extent it gives work charged status to the applicant as a Pipe Lineman. The respondents are directed to give work charged status as Fitter Grade–I to the applicant from the date from which status of work charged Pipe Lineman was given to him. There is no order as to costs.” 2. Before the Tribunal, the respondent had challenged the order Annexure A-2 with the Original Application, granting him work charged status as Pipe Lineman with effect from 1.1.1994. The Tribunal accepted this contention and passed the order which has been challenged in this petition. 3. Annexure P-2 has been filed with this writ petition showing number of days worked by the respondent against various posts. According to this, he started discharging his duties as Fitter Grade I from January, 1986. 4. In view of the decision in Mool Raj Upadhyaya v.The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316, the respondent would be entitled to the work charged status as Fitter Grade I from the date he had completed 10 years of service against this post. We accordingly modify the order of the Tribunal and direct the petitioners to give work charged status to respondent as Fitter Grade I w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.