HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. : 457 of 2002 Decided on: 23.7.2008. State of H.P. and others ……… Petitioners. Versus Prithi Singh ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioners: Mr.R.M. Bisht and Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate Generals. For the respondent: Mr.Surender Sharma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral): This petition by the State is directed against the order of the learned H.P State Administrative Tribunal, dated 18.4.2001, whereby the Original Application filed by the respondent has been allowed and the State has been directed to count the period after the oral termination of the respondent-employee for the purposes of counting of seniority and regularization. From the documents annexed with the present petition, it is apparent that the petitioner had earlier filed an Original Application No.1338 of 1990 challenging his oral order of termination. On 17.3.1993, an interim order was passed directing that he be re-engaged in the same capacity and at the same station where he was employed previously. This order was passed on a miscellaneous application. The final order passed in the Original Application itself has not been placed on record by either side. ___________ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - The respondent thereafter filed O.A. No.(D) 706 of 1999 praying therein that the period from 1990, when his services were orally terminated, to 17th March, 1993, when the interim order was passed by the learned Tribunal be counted for the purposes of reckoning his seniority as well as for calculating the period of service for the purpose of regularization. This original application was allowed. This order has been challenged before us. Alongwith the petition, the State has filed the man day’s chart in respect of respondent-employee. This shows that in 1990, he had only served for 163- 1/2 days and in the year 1991, he had served for 345 days. It is not disputed that from 1991, the respondent-employee has been working continuously for more than 240 days in each year. It is apparent that the order in M.A. No.1953 of 1992 in O.A. No.1338 of 1990 was passed on March 17, 1993 in complete ignorance of the fact that the respondent-employee was already working since the year 1991. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, we modify the order of the learned Tribunal and direct that the respondent-employee shall be deemed to be in continuous service from 1st January, 1991 and shall be offered work-charge status of Beldar w.e.f. 1.1.2001 in accordance with the Scheme framed by State Government and approved by the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya v. State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supp(2) Supreme Court Cases 316. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. July 23, 2008. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.