JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order, dated 23rd November, 2009, made by the Writ Court/learned Single Judge in CWP (T) No. 5804 of 2008 (OA No. 1411/99), titled as Ram Chander & Ors. Versus State of H.P. & Ors., whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners-respondents No. 1 to 3 came to be allowed and the writ respondents were directed to give the work-charge status to the writ petitioners-respondents No. 1 to 3 notionally with effect from 1st January, 1994, with all consequential benefits (for short “the impugned judgment”). 2. It would be profitable to reproduce para 5 of the impugned judgment herein: “5. It has not been denied on behalf of the respondents that on 1.1.1994 all the petitioners had completed ten years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year from the date they were engaged. The work-charge status and regularization of a workman are two different situations. The daily wage/muster-roll workers on completion of ten years or more of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31.12.1993 as per scheme modified by Supreme Court is entitled to appointment as work-charge employee w.e.f. 1.1.1994 and is entitled to time scale of pay applicable to the corresponding lowest grade in the government. The regularization of the petitioners w.e.f. 1.1.1998 as submitted by learned Senior Additional Advocate General has nothing to do with their entitlement for work-charge status on 1.1.1994 as per para 4 (1) of Supreme Court judgment in Mool Raj Upadhyaya. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has not shown any scheme, rule or regulation which debars a workman for work-charge status on completion of ten years of continuous service, as ordered by the Supreme Court, once the workman has been regularized after 1.1.1994. The work-charge status has some consequential benefits. There is no denial of the fact that work-charge status now can be given to the petitioners notionally w.e.f. 1.1.1994 as all the petitioners have been regularized w.e.f. 1.1.1998, but such notional work-charge status w.e.f. 1.1.1994 shall be with all consequential benefits permissible in law.” 3. We have gone through the pleadings, examined the record and are of the view that the impugned judgment is well reasoned, needs no interference. 4. At this stage, Mr. We have gone through the pleadings, examined the record and are of the view that the impugned judgment is well reasoned, needs no interference. 4. At this stage, Mr. Ashwani K. Gupta, learned counsel for the writ petitioners-respondents No. 1 to 3, stated at the Bar that the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, has already complied with the directions made by this Court in a case, being CWP No. 2415 of 2012, involving the similar issue. His statement is taken on record. He has also made available copy of office order, dated 20th April, 2016, made by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla, across the Board, made part of the file. 5. Having said so, no interference is required. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 6. It is made clear that this order shall not be treated as a precedent. 7. Pending applications, is any, are also disposed of accordingly.