JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.03.2015, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 4850 of 2013, titled as Kartar Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, whereby the writ petition came to be allowed, for short ‘the impugned judgment’. 2. The writ petitioner-respondent herein filed writ petition and prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding writ respondents to grant work charge status/regularization of his services against the post of Mate with all consequential benefits, on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 3. The writ respondents-appellants filed reply and resisted the writ petition. 4. The writ petitioner-respondent has specifically averred in the writ petition that he was appointed/engaged as daily waged Beldar in the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, Sub Division Kotla, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, in the year 1978 and thereafter he worked as Mate and was working as such till the filing of the writ petition in terms of the muster roll issued by the appellants-writ respondents in the year 1979 and prayed that his services be regularized as Mate. 5. The writ respondents-appellants have given details in para-1 of the preliminary submissions of the reply. 6. Admittedly, the writ petitioner-appellant was performing his duties as Mate right from the year 1979. The appellants-writ respondents have placed on record the Mandays Chart at page 70 on the file of the writ petition, issued by the Executive Engineer, Jawali Division, HPPWD Jawali, which does disclose that the writ petitioner has performed his duties as daily waged Beldar in the year 1978 for 262 days and right from 1979 to 1994, as daily waged Mate for almost 240 days in each calendar year, except the years 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1989. The writ petitioner-respondent has also given explanation in the writ petition why he could not complete 240 days in the years 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1989. 7. The Writ Court in para-6 of the impugned judgment has made discussion and held that the writ petitioner was performing his job uninterruptedly except for the said years. 8. The Writ Court has rightly discussed the mandate of the Apex Court’s judgments from paras-8 to 10 of the impugned judgment. 9. 7. The Writ Court in para-6 of the impugned judgment has made discussion and held that the writ petitioner was performing his job uninterruptedly except for the said years. 8. The Writ Court has rightly discussed the mandate of the Apex Court’s judgments from paras-8 to 10 of the impugned judgment. 9. Having said so, we are of the considered view that the Writ Court has rightly made the impugned judgment and commanded the respondents to regularize the services of the writ petitioner w.e.f. 8.3.1995, as Mate, without monetary benefits and also held that the said period is to be counted for the purpose of seniority, pensionary benefits and other retiral benefits. 10. Viewed thus, there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is upheld and the appeal is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any.