IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 3976 of 2011-D Date of Decision : November 1 , 2011 Dhian Singh Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to count seniority of the petitioner on and with effect from February, 1996, i.e. from the initial date of appointment of the petitioner. (ii) That further a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from February, Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2004 (instead of 28.1.2010) when it became due to the petitioner as per the policy of the respondents with all consequential benefits of pay, seniority, arrears etc. (iii) To produce the entire record pertaining to the case before this Hon’ble Court for its kind perusal. (iv) Any other relief as may be deemed just and proper keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2. From the reply filed by the State it is apparent that petitioner was engaged as a Beldar in the year 1996 itself, in which year he worked for 235 days. Man-days chart (Annexure R-I) annexed by the respondents also reveals that petitioner worked for 202 days in the year 1997, 188 days in the year 1998, 233 days in the year 1999, 238 days in the year 2000 and 239 days in the year 2001. 3. Petitioner was aggrieved of the fact that respondents were giving fictional breaks as such he approached the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of filing O.A. No. 399 of 2001 in which the following order was passed on 21.9.2001:- “The learned counsel for the parties represent that the present O.A. is covered by the order passed in O.A. No. 2392/98 dated August 25, 1999. 3 On the basis of the same, the following order is passed in the present Original Application:- “Heard. The learned Additional Advocate General represented that henceforth no break in service of the applicant would be given by the department. That being so, the applicant who is stated to be still in service shall not be given any break in future. The termination of the engagement of the applicant if any shall be made in accordance with law. The previous period of the applicant shall be considered for seniority and no backwages for the break-up period shall be given.” With these observations and directions, the present Original Application stands disposed of.” [Emphasis supplied] 4. It is not in dispute that after 2002 petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year. It is also not in dispute that petitioner now stands regularized w.e.f. 28.1.2010. Quite apparently petitioner had worked between 1996 and 2001. This period, in view of order dated 21.9.2001, which undoubtedly has attained finality, has to be considered for giving benefit of seniority/regularization to the petitioner in terms of the policy framed by the State. 5. As such, there shall be a direction to respondent No. 1 to take into account the period between the years 1996 up to 2001 for the purposes of regularization in terms of order dated 21.9.2001. Consequential action shall positively be taken within 4 a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. November 1 , 2011 (PK)