IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 12621 of 2008. Decided on : 8th April, 2011. Ramesh Chand and another. ..…Petitioners. Versus State of H. P. and others …… Respondents. ___________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : None for the petitioner, though served. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. Justice V.K.Sharma, Judge (Oral) None appears on behalf of the petitioners who are duly served for today. 2. The petition has been filed on the following prayer: “That the respondents maybe directed to regularize the services of the applicants as required under the Policy annexure P-1 of the State Govt. with all consequential benefits.” 3. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide para 1 of the preliminary submissions: “That the applicants were appointed by the replying respondent on daily wages basis vide dated 24.8.99 as is evidently clear from the Annexure P-1 and P-3 annexed with the present original applicant @51/- per day without pre-condition to regularize their services. The applicants according to the office record and the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 annexureP-2 & P-3 are daily waged employees of the department not the casual labourers. In fact, in the department of replying respondent, the casual labourers are engaged in the Ayurvedic Pharmacy and in Herbal Garden not in the Ayurvedic health Centers where the applicants are working. They are thus misrepresenting the facts. There is separate policy of the department to regularize the services of daily waged employees. The applicants do not covers under the policy of the H. P. Govt. framed for the regularization of casual labourers as per Annexure P-1. Hence, there is no force in the present original applicatins. The applicants has therefore no locus standi.” 4. Rejoinder refuting the above stand on behalf of the respondents and reiterating the averments set up in the petition has been filed. 5. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioners still have any surviving grievance, they shall be free to make representation(s) along with copy of this judgment to the respondents/competent authority within one month from today, who shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter within next three months in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, if so desired. 6. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP (s), if any. (V.K.Sharma.) Judge. 8th April, 2011. (jai)