IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.12004 of 2008. Decided on: 29.12.2010. Raj Pal. ……….Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. ……….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner. : Mr. Lokender Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P.Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that his case for regularization has not been considered. It has come in the reply that the case of the petitioner was sent for sanction to the respondents-State and the same was under active consideration when the reply was filed on 21.07.2005. 2. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as undertaken, if not already considered, within a period of two months after production of 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?. No. 2 certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner, from due date with all consequential benefits. The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 29, 2010. (krt)