CWP (T) No. 6762 of 2008 15.5.2010 Present: Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.M.Bisht, Dy. A.G. and Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. for the respondent/State. Petitioner has prayed for regularization of his services. The respondents have placed on record material to show that as on the date of filing of the petitioner, petitioner was not entitled for regularization. He had not completed 160/240 days of service in a calendar year. This fact has not been contradicted. As such, there is no merit in the petition. 2. However, on 3rd July, 2000, an interim direction was issued that services of the petitioner shall not be terminated except in accordance with law. Mr. Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, is unable to state as to whether his client has been in actual service since then or not. Hence, no further and other orders are required to be passed in this petition save and except that if ultimately it is found that petitioner is entitled for the benefits of various schemes of regularization/awarding work charges status of the State, he shall be considered and accorded benefits in accordance with law. 3. With these observations, this petition stands disposed of. May 15, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) *BRB* Judge.