IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C. Rev.(T) No.: 11 of 2008. Decided on: 29.10.2010. _____________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Petitioners. Versus Ravi Kumar Sharda. … Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): The erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal vide its well reasoned judgment, dated 31st December, 2004 has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has been working as Draftsman since his initial date of engagement, i.e. 1.1.1986. The learned Tribunal on the basis of material placed on record by the workman alongwith the petition as well as additional material by way of M.A No.3429 of 2001 came to the conclusion that the workman was in possession of essential qualification at the time of his initial engagements. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - 2. Consequently, there is no error apparent on the face of record. The order of the learned Tribunal, dated 31st December, 2004, directing the respondents to regularise the workman on his completion of 10 years’ service w.e.f. 1.1.1996 is not required to be interfered with. 3. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. October 29, 2010. (sck).