IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P.(T) No. : 5724 of 2008. Decided on: 28th July, 2010. _________________________________________________________ Neelam Rai. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. J.R. Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge(Oral): Petitioner was engaged for a period of 89 days as per Annexure A-1, dated 09.11.1998 as Instructor, Data Preparation, Computer Software in the Industrial Training Institute, Shahpur. He approached the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 796 of 1999 with the prayer that he may be re-engaged after the expiry of 89 days. The learned Tribunal passed the following interim order on 01.03.1999: “Issue notice pending admission. The learned Additional Advocate General, waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent State. Reply within six weeks. List thereafter. In the meanwhile, the respondents are directed to allow the applicant to work in the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. present School, if the post still exists and are lying vacant and no one has been posted either on fresh appointment or by transfer.” 2. Thereafter, the reply was filed by the respondent- State. The respondent-State also moved an application bearing M.A. No. 2938/1999 in O.A. No. 796 of 1999 seeking vacation of interim order dated 01.03.1999. It has come in paragraph No. 4 of the application that in pursuance to the interim order dated 01.03.1999, the petitioner was re-engaged as Instructor, Data Preparation, Computer Software for a period of 89 days time and again on contract basis. However, fact of the matter is that on the basis of the interim order dated 01.03.1999, the petitioner is still continuing in the same capacity. It will be harsh at this stage to terminate the services of the petitioner, even though his initial engagement was for a period of 89 days. He has worked for more than 11 years. 3. Consequently, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioner since he has worked for more than 11 years and has gained sufficient experience. Respondents are also directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in accordance with law, within a period of ten weeks from today. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge July 28, 2010. (bhupender)