IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 8890 of 2008. Decided on: 08.12.2010. __________________________________________________________ Nand Lal. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. H.K. Paul, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General with Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral): Petitioner was engaged in the year 1996. He had completed 155 days in 1996, 198½ days in 1997, 181 days in 1998, 148 days in 1999, 215 days in 2000, 344 days in 2001 and 313 days in 2002. The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that taking into consideration the fact that he had been working since 1996, respondents ought to have taken steps to regularise him. The case of the respondents precisely is that since the petitioner has not completed 160 days in 1996 and 1999, he could not be considered for regularization. Mr. H.K. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client is still in employment with the respondents and had put in requisite number of years and has also 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - completed 160 days. If it is so, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization after counting the requisite number of years from 2000 onwards and if he has completed 160 days, within a period of six weeks from the production of certified copy of this judgment. 2. Consequently, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 08, 2010. (sck).