JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Both these appeals are the outcome of the judgment and order, dated 13th June, 2011, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in CWP(T) No.4 of 2011, titled Jag Mohan Singh v. The H.P. State Electricity Board and Ors., whereby it was held that the case of the writ petitioner (appellant in LPA No.9 of 2012) was covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya v. State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supp.(2) SCC 316 and the writ respondents (appellants in LPA No.621 of 2011) were directed to consider the case of the writ petitioner for grant of work charge status w.e.f. 1.1.1997, with all consequential benefits such as seniority and pay fixation. 2. Facts of the case necessary for the disposal of present appeals are thus. Initially, the writ petitioner, namely, Jag Mohan Singh filed an Original Application bearing No.165 of 2006 before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, which was granted by the Tribunal on 7th April, 2006 with a direction to the writ respondents to treat the said Original Application as representation and examine the same within three months. The said order is reproduced hereunder: "The only grievance of the applicant in the instant case is that the applicants were working with the respondent/Board for the last ten years as T.mate on daily wage basis with 240 days in each calendar year, but their services were not brought on the work charged establishment from due date after the said span. At the request of learned counsel for the applicants and in the peculiar circumstances of the case the present original application itself is directed to be treated as representation to the Secretary, HPSEB with a direction to decide the same within a period of three months from the passing of this order. He is further directed to consider the case of the applicants for work charge status in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhayay v. State of H.P. 1994(2) SLR 377. The Division Bench of this Tribunal has also decided the similarly situated case titled as Jagdish Ram v. State of H.P. OA-3/2004 on 6.12.2005." 3. The Division Bench of this Tribunal has also decided the similarly situated case titled as Jagdish Ram v. State of H.P. OA-3/2004 on 6.12.2005." 3. The writ respondents examined the said representation and rejected the case of the writ petitioner vide order, dated 30th May, 2006, constraining the writ petitioner to file another Original Application, bearing No.2511 of 2007 before the Tribunal, which, on abolition of the Tribunal, was transferred to this Court and was diarized as CWP(T) No.4 of 2011. 4. The learned Single Judge, after examining the material placed on the writ file, held that the representation was wrongly rejected by the writ respondents and that the case of the writ petitioner was covered in terms of paragraph 4(2) of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra). It is apt to reproduce paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment hereunder: "8. The case of the petitioner is covered under Para-4(2) above for giving him work charged status. In view of facts which have come on record, the petitioner is entitled to work charged status with effect 01.01.1997 with all consequential benefits such as seniority and pay fixation. The Board has not properly considered the representation of the petitioner while rejecting the representation of petitioner on 30th May, 2006 and, therefore, order dated 30th May, 2006 is liable to be quashed." 5. The learned Single Judge directed the writ respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner for conferring work charge status w.e.f. 1.1.1997, with all consequential benefits, such as, seniority and pay fixation. 6. The writ respondents resisted the claim of the writ petitioner on the ground that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra) was not applicable in the case of the writ petitioner. The contention of the writ respondents is not tenable for the simple reason that the erstwhile Tribunal had directed the writ respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner in light of the judgment in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case (supra) and the writ respondents have accepted the judgment, have not questioned the same, thus, has attained finality. The writ respondents examined the claim of the writ petitioner in compliance to the said judgment, cannot make U-turn now. 7. The writ respondents examined the claim of the writ petitioner in compliance to the said judgment, cannot make U-turn now. 7. The learned counsel for the writ respondents (appellants in LPA No.621 of 2011) has frankly conceded that the case of the writ petitioner was to be considered in terms of Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case (supra), in view of the earlier litigation. It was further submitted that it may not be treated as precedent. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner argued that this Court, in LPA No. 490 of 2011, titled Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority and others v. Baldev Chand, decided on 15th May, 2012, has already held that the decision rendered in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case (supra) is applicable to the employees of Corporations and other Government Institutions etc. 9. Having said so, the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned judgment. 10. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner (appellant in LPA No.9 of 2012) also argued that the learned Single Judge has held the writ petitioner entitled to all consequential releifs such as seniority and pay fixation, that does not mean that the writ petitioner is not held entitled to actual back-wages. 11. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is forceful for the reason that the learned Single Judge has held the writ petitioner entitled to all consequential reliefs such as seniority and pay fixation, which does not mean that the writ petitioner was denied back-wages. Therefore, it is held that writ petitioner is also entitled to back-wages. 12. With the above observations, the impugned judgment is upheld and the writ respondents are directed to consider the case of the writ petitioner in light of the decision in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case (supra) and pass the consideration order in terms of the impugned judgment read with the observations made hereinabove within three weeks. 13. Both the appeals stand disposed of, as indicated above, with all pending CMPs, if any. Appeals disposed of.