IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. L.P.A. No. 291 of 2011. Decided on: 03.08.2011. State of H.P. and others. ….. Appellants. -Versus- Vijay Kumar and others. …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the appellants. : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents. : None. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): C.M.P.(M) No. 991 of 2011. Allowed. Delay condoned. L.P.A. No. 291 of 2011. State has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment dated 31.05.2010, rendered in C.W.P. No. 2753 of 2008. 2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this L.P.A. are that the respondents were engaged on daily wage basis w.e.f. April, 1993, February, 1990, March, 1990 and July, 1992, 2 respectively. They were regularized on 3rd May, 2003 and 3rd July, 2006 on the basis of instructions dated 29.08.2002. 3. Case of the respondents, in a nut-shell, before the learned Single Judge was that their case was required to be considered as per the law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P., 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316 and by this Court in Gauri Dutt and others Vs. State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2008 (H)) 366. 4. Learned Single Judge, on the basis of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 1928 of 2008, titled Pawan Kumar Vs. H.P. Housing & Urban Dev. Authority & others, has disposed of the petition filed by the respondents by directing the appellant-State to examine the case of the respondents in the light of the policy framed by the State Government, and prevailing at the relevant time. The other direction issued by this Court is that in case the respondents ask for an opportunity of being heard, or make a supplementary representation, the same shall also be considered while passing the order. 5. We see no illegality in the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 31.05.2010. The only direction, as noticed above to the appellant-State is to consider the case of the respondents in the light of the policy framed by the appellant-State 3 and prevailing at the relevant time. Accordingly, there is no merit in this L.P.A. and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. August 03, 2011. (bhupender)