IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C. Rev. No.: 88 of 2011 with COPC No.27 of 2011. Reserved on: 25.08.2011. Decided on: 29.9.2011. ______________________________________________ 1. C. Rev. No.88 of 2011. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Applicants/Respondents. Versus Trilok Chand. … Non-Applicant/Respondent. 2. COPC No.27 of 2011. Trilok Chand. … Petitioner. Versus Gurdev Singh and another. … Contemnor/Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Present: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General for the petitioners in C. Rev. No.88 of 2011 and for respondent No.1 in COPC No.27 of 2011. Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate for the respondent in C. Rev. No.88 of 2011 and for the petitioner in COPC No.27 of 2011. Mr. Pawan K. Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2 in COPC No.27 of 2011. - 2 - Justice Rajiv Sharma, J.: C. Rev. No.88 of 2011. The State is seeking review of the judgment dated 27.12.2007 passed by learned Tribunal (now defunct), in O.A. No.(D) 164 of 2007. 2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this review petition are that the respondent herein has filed O.A.(D) 164 of 2007 seeking regularisation after completion of ten years of service. The learned Tribunal decided the Original Application on 27.12.2007 and directed the State to regularise the workman with effect from 1.1.2006 on the basis of Mool Raj Upadhayay’s case. The respondent-State has taken a stand in the reply that the regularisation was dependent on creation of posts. Respondent- Department has already taken up the matter with the Government for creation of 188 Nos. of Class-IV posts vide letter dated 20.8.2007. It was also undertaken in the reply that the case of the respondent herein shall be considered accordingly. The stand of the respondent-Department was also that the work-charge status was not available in Horticulture Department. It is in these circumstances that the State has sought review of the judgment dated 27.12.2007 passed by the learned Tribunal. These posts have been created after 2007 and the writ petitioner was regularised in the month of February, 2009. We are also of the considered view that the regularisation of the petitioner was - 3 - dependent on the creation of posts and in view of this, the learned Tribunal has erred in law by direction the regularisation of writ petitioner/respondent herein with effect from 1.1.2006. There is an error apparent on the face of record and the judgment dated 27.12.2007 passed by the learned Tribunal is accordingly modified to the extent that the petitioner was required to be considered for regularisation subject to availability of vacancy and not with effect from 1.1.2006. The respondent herein cannot seek regularisation with effect from 1.1.2006. The Civil Review petition stands disposed of accordingly. COPC No.27 of 2011. 3. In view of our findings given while deciding the civil review petition No.88 of 2011, there is no merit in the contempt petition and the same is dismissed. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. September 29, 2011. (sck).