JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The petitioners by way of these writ petitions have called in question the orders dated 1.8.2007/3.8.2007 passed by the learned Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal whereby they have been directed to confer work-charge status upon the respondents on completion of 10 years of service in accordance with decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhayay vs. State of H.P. 1994 (2) SCC 316 . 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. 3. Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that in absence of any work charge establishment, no directions for conferment of work charge status could have been issued by the learned Tribunal. 4. The argument though appears to be attractive, but then the same is not available to the petitioners in view of the defence already taken by it before the learned Tribunal. The petitioners had clearly conceded before the learned Tribunal that in terms of the instructions issued by the Government vide letter dated 3.4.2002, the work charge status was required to be conferred upon its employees on the completion of 8 years on 31.3.2000. 5. Here, it shall be apt to reproduce para 6 (ii) of their reply, which reads thus: “6(ii). That in reply to this para, it is submitted that the State Government has issued instruction from time to time with regard to regularisation of daily waged workers. The same instruction also apply to the daily/contingent paid worker, like the applicant who has prayed for work charge status. According to the latest instruction issued by the department of Personnel vide notification No. PER (AP)-C-B(2)-2/97-Vol.IV) (Loose) dated 3.4.2002, copy of which is annexed as Annexure R-1, the daily waged/contingent paid workers who have completed eight years of continues service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year as on 31.3.2000 will be eligible for work charge category if not for regularisation. It has further been provided in these instructions that completion of required years of services makes such daily/contingent paid worker’s case eligible for consideration for work charge status/regularisation, from the prospective effect i.e. from the date the order is issued after completion of codal formalities. The applicant did not complete eight years as on 31.3.2000 and hence he has not become eligible for work charge status. The applicant did not complete eight years as on 31.3.2000 and hence he has not become eligible for work charge status. Person senior to the applicant are there to be given work charge status. The decision in Mool Raj Upadhaya vs. State of H.P. is not disputed, but in view of existing policy of the State Government, by which the daily/contingent paid worker who have completed eight years are being given work charge status, seniority wise therefore keeping in view the fact that the applicant did not completed 8 years on 31.3.2000 as such his case could not be considered for work charge status. However, as and when his turn comes as per the seniority, his case would be considered for work charge status.” 6. It is more than settled that the parties are expected to raise specific pleadings before the first forum for adjudication of the dispute and those pleadings then are the basis of the cases of the respective parties, even before the appellate/higher Courts. The parties would be bound by such pleadings, of course, subject to the right of amendment allowed in accordance with law. (Refer: Union of India and others vs. Jagdish Pandey and others (2010) 7 SCC 689 ). 7. Once the petitioners themselves have conceded that its employees are entitled to the conferment of work charge status on completion of eight years, then we see no reason as to why these petitions have been filed, particularly, when the orders of the learned Tribunal, in fact, operate to the advantage of the petitioners because as against the period of eight years notified by the State Government, the learned Tribunal has directed the conferment of work charge status upon the respondents that too after completion of ten years of service. 8. Having said so, we find no merit in these petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed alongwith pending applications, leaving the parties to bear their costs. The Registry is directed to place a copy of this judgment on the files of connected matters.